Skip to main content

Full text of "Of episcopacy : three epistles of Peter Moulin, Doctor and professor of divinity : answered by the Right Reverend Father in God Lancelot Andrews, Late Lord Bishop of Winchester"

See other formats 


m 


■■■If 


ft 


ran 


WKS 


v  M    : :  ■:•' 

&£H  ■'  mm ■■'■'' 

;  ■•■.'.•.•■•■•■•     : 
•  Mm  ■,.,".-■■•  ' 


PRIITCE 


THBOLOGI 


nm 


COLLECTION  OF  PURITAN  AND 
ENGLISH  THEOLOGICAL  LITERATURE 

I 

LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 
PRINCETON,  NEW  JERSEY 


Of  Epifcopacy. 
THREE    EPISTLES 

O  F 

Peter   Moulin  Dodfcor and 
Profeffor  of  Divinity. 

Anfwered 

By  the  Right  Reverend  Father  in  God 

Lancelot  \Andreyps^ 

LateLord  Bifliop  of  Winchester* 

Trazjlatedfir  the  benejit  of  the  Yublikg. 


S.  Clemens  ia  Epifl.  ad  Corinth,  i. 

Our  <Apollies  under j.  ood  by  our  lord  Jtfus  Cbriff,  that  there  "would  he  contention 
^  about  the  name  ofEpif.opg.cj. 


1 


Printed  in  the  Yeer.   164^ 


/LfiJt- 


To  the  moft  Reverend  Tre/ate> 

the  Lord  Bijbop  oiWincheJhr, 

Peter  Moulin  wiflheth  all 
health  and  hap- 
pinefs. 

Hat  Honorable  man ,  your  Fre- 
decejjbr,  was  taken  hence  >  not 
without  great  damage  both 
to  the  Church  and  Common- 
wealth.  The  King  loft  a  moft 
wife  Comfeller,  and  the  Church 
afaithfull  Faftor-y  but  I  a  Patron  and  zfriend\ 
who,  though  he  was  moft  carefull  and  deft- 
rous  of  my  good  yet,  oblig'd  me  more  by  his 
Virtues^  then  his benefits.  I  have  his  Letters 
by  me ,  which  he  wrote  to  me  when  he  was 
fick3  and  his  recovery  was  almoft  defperatej 
the  very  fight  wherof  doth  exceedingly  af- 
fli&  me.  But  yet  my  grief  was  not  a  little 
easd?  when  I  heard  that ym  fucceeded  in  his 
room,  whofe learning  I  longfince  admird, 
and  of  whofe  goodaffedtion  I  had  great  expe- 

A-    3  rience, 


^    D. Moulin s     OfSpiJcopacy.  I.Epift. 

brcifly  ray  meaning  in  them. 

—  I  I  faid ,  indeed ,  that  the  Name*  of  Bijhop 

and  Presbyter  were  taken  for  all  one  in  the 
New  Teftament :  But  I  thought  not  that  the 
Dignity  of  the  Bijhop  was  lefs'ned  thereby, 
fince  I  fpake  only  of  the  Name  ,  not  of  the 
Office  only :  and  I  have  (befide  clear  places  of 
Scripture)  the  confent  not  only  of  Hierom 
the  presbyter ,  but  alio  of  the  moft  famous 
Bijhops  of  the  Ancient  Church,  Chryfoftom , 
Ambrofey  Theodoret,  who  took  it  not  as  a 
wrong  to  them,  or  that  any  thing  was  aba- 
ted of  their  honor,  if  it  were  beleeved  that 
the  Names  of  Bifeop  and  Vresbyter  were  at 
firft  ufed  in  the  fame  fenfe.  + 

—  II        That  the  Ott/er,indeed,of  Bijhop  and  Pres- 

byter was  one  and  the  fame,that  I  faid :  For 
fo  did  the  Ancient  Church  ty^x  think^  and  the 
Church  of  Rome  thinks  fo,  to  this  day:  al- 
though there  bein  that  Church  an  incredible 
difference  betwixt  the  pomp  of  the  BiJhopsy 
and  the  meanefs  of  the  Priefis.  Thence  it  is 
that  in  the  RomanV otrtifical  there  is  fet  down 
the  Confecrat ion  of  Bijhops ,  but  not  the  Ordi- 
nation of  them.  Indeed,  Order  is  one  thing,a 
Degree  anothertfor  men  of  one  and  the  fame 
Oraermay  differ  in  Qegree  and  Dignity  j  even 

as 


D.MouIin's      Ofcpifcopacj.   I.Epift.      5 

as  among  Bijhps  the  Degree  of  Archbifbops  is 
the  more  eminent. 

Howbeit,  that  this  Epifcopal  Degree  and  ttt 
Prerogative  is  by  Eccleftaftical,  not  by  Divine 
Right,  I  confefs  it  was  faid  by  me.  For  befide 
that  to  fpeak  otherwife  then  I  thought,  had 
not  been  the  part  of  an  vpright  honeft  man, 
you,  according  to  your  wonted  goodnefs,will 
eafily  judg,  that  a  French  man,  living  vnder 
the  Polity  of  the  French  Church,  could  not 
fpeak  otherwife,  but  he  muft  incur  the  cen- 
fure  of  our  Synods ,  and  vnder  the  danger 
(  uAmfUwt  )  of  degrading,be  forced  to  a  recan- 
tation. For  to  think  that  our  Churches  do  err 
i#  points  of  Faithyznd  in  that  which  is  of  Di- 
vine Right  were,  queftionles,  to  brand  them 
with  the  note  of  Here/y,andto  fliake  the con- 
fcience  of  many  weak  ones. 

Trul^,I  came  very  vnwillingly  to  the  wri- 
ting of  this  Book,  but  our  Church  requiring 
it,  and  lately  enforcing  me ,  for  to  ftop  the 
infolency  of  our  Adverfaries ,  who  in  this 
point  infult  over  vs  out  of  all  temper  ,  and 
fpeak  of  vs  as  of  fo  many  doltifh  mu&rums, 
newly  fprung  out  of  the  earth ,  and  as  of  a 
company  of  bafe  fellows  who  by  force  and 
tumult  had  got  the  Pu'ljrtt.  But,  howfoever, 

I  think. 


D. Moulin s   Ofbpi/ccpjtcj.     I.Epift. 

I  think,  I  have  kept  fuch  a  temper,  that,  in 
defending  our  own ,  I  have  not  ftruck  at 
your  government  5  nor  by  immoderate  affe- 
£Hon  to  a  part  have  inclined,  more  then  was 
meet,  to  either  fide.  Nor  did  I  ever  mention 
the  Bijbops  of  England  without  due  honor. 

Thcfe  things  I  thought  fit  to  write  to  youyt 
Great  Sir ,by  whom  I  chiefly  defire  my  papers 
may  be  approved.  I  had  lent  my  Bool^  to  yon 
before  now,but  that  I  was  told  by  divers  you 
vnderftopd  not  French.  Now  I  lend  it,  be- 
caufe,  fmce  you  enjoy  a  more  frequent  and 
neerer  prefence  of  HisMajeftie,  I  doubt  not ' 
but  He  may  have  fome  fpeech  with  you  about 
it,  and  ukyon  as  an  umpire  in  the  caufe.  An^ 
I  flial  moft  willingly  ftand  to  your  iudgment; 
well  knowing  that  the  moft  learned  are  ever 
the  moil  candidjand  hoping  that  you  wil  not 
lauce  too  deep  whatever  may  be  falyed 
with  a  fair  interpretation.  So  think  oFme,as 
of  a  man  with  whom  the  Authority  of  Antiquity 
flpalbe  ever  in  great  efteenr,  and  who  (hall  think 
Uiy  felf  fufficiently  arm'dagainft  al  oppofite 
judgments,  xiyou  ftial  not  vttcrly  difapprove 
what  I  liaye  writ.   G^preferve  youy  Great 

Vrelate.   Farewell. 

Paris.  Nones  o(sept.       m  Your  Honors  moft  devoted 
16 1 8.  Veter  Moulin. 

The 


B.Andrews's  OfEpiftopMy.    I.Epift.     7 

ffffffffffflftffffff 

The  Bifhops  Anfwer. 

Had  wrote  thefe  in  the  beginingof  March^ 
and  was  about  to  fend  them  prefently,  when, 
lo,  the  indifpofition  of  the  King  ,  in  point  of 
health,  made  me  lay  them  by ,  and  hindred 
my  fending  of  them.  This  ficknefs",  contracted  firft 
by  grief,  for  the  death  of  his  moft  dear  Confort ,  our 
moft  Graciow  <>)ueen,  and  the  negleft  of  all  care  of  his 
body  upon  that  greif ,  ended  at  laft  in  a  difeas  5  a  dif- 
eas  ,  indeed,  fo  intricat  and  doubtfull  ,  that  the  Phyfi- 
tians  themfelves  were  at  a  ftand  what  the  event  would 
be.  Wherby  I  forgat  that  I  wrote  3  and  fo  omitted  to 
fend  to  you..  For  all  I  had  to  do  was  to  fall  to  my  pray- 
ers, with  many  moe,who  were  fore  perplexed,  as  then 
in  jeopardy,for  a  moft  Cjrticioiu  King.But  God  lookd  up- 
on us,  and  reftord  Him  to  us,&  in  Him  us  to  our  felves. 
And  now,being  returnd  to  my  felfj  return  to you, what 
I  confefsj  have  bin  too  long  indebted  to  you  in$  fo  that, 
as  a  bad  debtor,  I  was  fain  to  be  calld  vpon,  by  Mon- 
fieur  Be&ulhu,  myourmme.  You  will  accept  of  this  my 
too  juft  excufe,  kindly,  as  you  are  wont }  and  promife 
your  felf^  from  me,  what  good  offices  one  friend  can  do 
another. 

Now  concerning  your  Book,  rewrite  that  fomepaf- 
fages  therin  greivd  the  Kings  Soul.  And  no  wonder. 
Fell  his  foul  is  tender,  and  very  fenfible  of  any  thing  in 
that  kind  that  bites  or  ftings.  For ,  out  of  His  Piety  to 
God,  He  makes  it  not  the  leaft  of  His  cares  to  tender  the 
Peace  and  Order  of  His  Church  here.  And  therfore ,  in 

B  His 


8      B. Andrews's     OfSpifcopaty    T.Epift 

His  great  wifdom.  He  p^efently  difcern^ whether  thefe 
Three  points  tended. 
I  I.  The  nameofB'Jhop  is  not  dlfiinct  from  that  of  Presbyter. 

J I  II.    The  Order  is  not  diftinctjfa&X.  \sjtot  the  Thing  it  f elf 

111        III.  And  fo  the  whole  £  mutter  "]  is  not  any  thing  of  Di- 
vine Right. 

What  could  they,  who  lately  made  all  the  ftirrs 
among  U3,m utter  more,poffibly?  Then,  that  i.  the 
?$jme  is  taken  cwfufedly.  that  2.  the  Thing  is  not  diflin7?. 
3.  Finally 5  that  it  is  a  Humm  invention  i  being  fetled  by 
man  may  be  unfetled,and  fo  ftands  or  falls  at  the  plea- 
fere  of  the  Commonwealth.  Thefe  Diclats  are  too  well 
known  to  the  King:  He  hath  been  long  usd  to  them  : 
They  have  long  fince  on  all  hands  been  rounded  in  His 
ears.  He  knows  that  there  are  ftill  among  us  fuch  i  a* 
will  from  your  writings  prefently  take  a  new  occafion., 
perhaps,  not  to  pluck  up  this  Order  of  ours,  that  for  fo 
many  ages  hath  taken  root  but,  forely,  to  defame  and 
calumniat  it. 

And  this  fo  much  the  rather,  becaufe,  at  one  and  thfr 
fame  time,  uot  by  agreement,  I  beleeve,  but  yet  as 
though  vpon  a  compact,  lo,  one  Hucer,  a  fellow  not 
hurt,  nor  medled  with  by  any,  in  a  very  unfeafonable 
time,  kt  (oithaBwk  in.  Latin  0  as  it  were,  of  the  fame 
argument.  What  King,  that  ftudies  the  Peace,  not  only 
of  His  own  Church,  but,  which  He  defireth ,  and  woulct 
purchafe  at  a  dear  rate,  even  of  the  whole  chriflian 
world,  would  not  thefe  things  trouble?  Wherfore,  if  the 
King  fet  a  dafh  of  diflike  upon  thofe  paflages,  take  it  not 
ill :  I  dare  (ay,  He  had  rather  fet  many  afierisks  of  com- 
mendation,then  one  dafh  of  diilikc,fpecially  upon  wffat 
isyour. 

This,  furely,is  theKingsmmd^ andis  (as  it  ought  to 
be)tbemindandfenfeof  vs  alt.  WherinI  appeal  to 

yoM 


B.Andrews's     {jfBpfcopacy.   I.EpiYK 

your  own  equity.  Ton  were  for  manteining  of  Tour  chur- 
ches Government^  and  the  reprefsing  of  your  adversaries 
infolency :  fhould  you  not  do  it,  you  Should  incurr  the 
cenfure  of  your  Synod ,  and  be  forced  either  to  recant,  or 
fear  to  be  degraded.  In  this  We  pardon  you,  and  demand 
the  like  pardon  from 70* ,  that  it  may  be  lawfull  for  us 
alfo  to  defend  our  Government  5  as  becometh  upright 
honeft  men.  For  we  likewife  have  froward  adverfa- 
ries  5  and  there  are  conferences,  too,  among  us0  which 
we  may  not  fuller  to  be  Shaken  or  undermind,asthough 
they  liv  d  under  another  form  of  Church  Government,  then 
was  from  the  begining,even  from  the  very  times  of  the 
Apoftles.  And  we  are  ready  5  if  need  be,  and  occafion 
Shall  ferve,  to  make  this  good  to  the  whole  church. 

How  I  wiSh  therfore  ,  that  you  had  not  fo  much  as 
tonchdupon  our  Church  Government.  For  who  put  you 
upon  it  \  Tou  might  have  turnd  your  weapons  againft 
thofe  enemy  s  (  you  fpeak  of)  and  never  have  jerkt  at  vs. 
Theres  no  fuch  complication  of  ours  with  yours^but  that 
you  might  eafily  have  pafs'd  by  curs  with  filence.  And 
A  faithfull  filence  hath  its  fure  reward. 

Or,  if  you  were  fo  Set  upon  it  ,  that  you  muft  needs 
be  intermedling  with  Ours0  how  I  wifh  you  had  firft  im- 
parted your  mind  to  the  King :  and,  whilft  the  coaft 
was  cleer ,  had  feafonably  taken  His  advice  in  that  you 
had  to  fey  of  //^affairs  :  (  for  Ours  He  accounts  His. ) 
You  your  felf  know  (and,  indeed,  who  knows  not 
fince  He  hath  wrote  fo  much,  fo  admirably  ?  )  that ,  as 
He  is  moft  able  in  reSped  of  his  other  endowments  of 
Wit  and  Learnings  fo  alfo,  in  refpeft  of  his  acute  nej^zxA 
foltdity  of  udgment ,  he  as  equal  to  the  beft ,  or  rather 
goes  before  them.  No  man  living  hath  in  our  Churches 
affairs  a  dearer  in fight \  a  readier  di$atchy  then  he.  He  him- 
fetf  >in  any  point,  but  Specially  in  what  concerns  his  own 

B  2  Church 


io    B. -Andrews*   OfEpifcopacy.    T.Epifl:. 

Church  could  have  anfwerd  you  befhand  have  Cctyou 
the  bounds,  fo  far  to  go,  but  not  beyond.  Wherfore,  if 
hereafter/^  (hall  go  about  any  thing  in  the  like  kind, 
pray  remember  this  my  advice  ,  which  proceeds  from 
a  very  good  will  to  you  i>  I  knowing  that  the  King  is  well 
affe&ed  to  you  $  that  he  hath  deferved  well  of  you  ,  (nor 
will  you  deny  it.,)  and, 1  hope  ,  will  for  the  future  de- 
ferve  better. 

j  Concerning  thofe  Three  point s^  if  you  demand  (as  you 

do)  what  I  think , 1  (hall  give  you  here  this  ingenuous 
aniwer  5  That  the  Tfjmes  of  Bifbop and  Presbyter  are  ta- 
ken promifcuoufly  in  Holy  Scriptures :  that  at  firft,there 
was  not  fo  great  force  in  the  Words  ,  I  fhal  eafily  grant 
you.Nordid/^Majeftie  regard  (bmuch5wW  you  faid, 
as  to  what  purpofc  5  as  what  others  would  catch  from 
thence^ who,  both  in  other  parts,&  here  among  us, too, 
are  not  rightly  affefted  to  this  our  order :that  thefe  things 
were  fpoke  to  this  purpofe^  as  if  the  Thames  being  pro- 
mifcuous  „  the  Things  themfelves  were/*alfo.  For  to 
what  end  is  it ,  of  what  concernment,  to  fpeak  of 
Words  taken  confufedly^  when  the  Things are  diftwcl.  No 
man,  lightly,  carps  at  the  2{ame  5  but  he  that  wiflieth 
not  very  well  to  the  ThingdSo. 

1 .  And  yet  nothing  here  hath  befallen  Bifhops,  which 
hath  not  befallen  thofe  other  Orders  al  fo.  For,  in  thofe 
very  places,  in  thofe  very  Authors  whom  you  name,  it 
*  s  Cbryfo?  h  isiaid  in  like  manner  alfo  of  Deacons,  a  Even  a  ^ijhop 
ad  T,Utp  c.i.  &  called  a  Deacon  :voherupon  S.  Paul  writing  to  Ttmothy^  fiiid 
ts  him^  though  a  B/fhop^  Fullfillthy  Deaconry.  From  thence 
you  may  gather,that  the  Thames  of  Bijhop  and  Deacon  are 
taken  for  the  fame.  Nay,  the  very  Apofiles  themfelves 
call  themfelves  fometimes  Presbyters ,  fometimes  Dca- 
contend  fo  their  whole  Offtee  a  Deaconry^  and  yet  is  not 
Deacon  or  Presbyter  the  fame  that  Apofilc.  Why  therfore 

did 


B.Andrews-s    OfEpifcopacy.  I.bpift.     "" 

did  you  not  add  that  too,  that  it  might  appear  that  the 
other  differed  as  much  as  l&i/hfs.-and  that,  in  the  begin- 
ingDnot  only  the  names  of  B//%>/,but  o£ other  Orders  alfb 
were  taken,  inlikemaner,  promifcuou(ly\  wheras  the 
Things ^ the  Offices  them fe Ives  werediftinft. 

7.  Wheras,  then  j  in  thofe  very  places  ,  where  the 
Fathers  fpeak  fo  ,  f"  That  then  they  communicated  in 
Thames "]  they  prefently  apply  a  remedy  ,  and  give  this 
item  D  that  the  Things  themfelves  are  otherwile.  And 
inftantly  add  \_Af toward  the  Proper  name  wo*  given  to 
each  -y0fBiJhop  to  a  Bifhop,  of  Presbyter  to  a  Presbyter.  ~]  By 
the  rule  of  fpeech  then,  who  would  urg:,  the  common 
name,  when  the  proper  had  taken  place  ?  For  no  body 
would  now  call  a  IOng  i  a.  Tyrant  3  or  a  Soulier,  £  Latro- 
nem~]  as  of  old  they  were  wont,  a  Robber :  neither,  fure, 
would  they  call  a  Presbyter,  a  Bifhop ;  as  when  S.  Hhrom 
wrote,  had  he  called  himfelf  Bifhop,  ands.  Augufline 
Presbyter ,  you  know,  he  would  have  been  laughed  at 
for  his  pains. 

3.  Add  further,that  in  thofe  very  places  wherin  the 
Fathers  fpeak  fo,  before  they  fpeak,  they  are  forced 
£i^Wfai>^}to  objeft  by  way  of  exception  concerning 
the  ufe  o£names,and  to  premife  fome  what  that  fhould 
put  the  thing  out  of  queftion.  S.  Chryfoftom  jj  what  mean- 
eth  this?  were  there  then  more  Btthops  of  one  fa  the  fame  city? 
by  no  means.  No3  not  then  when  S.  Paul  wrote.  Theodo- 
ret  5  It  could  not  be,  that  many  Bifhop  s  fhould  be  Pa  ft  or s  of  one 
City.  SMierow^  There  could  not  be  many  Bifhops  in  one  City* 
S.  Ambrofe :,  God  appointed  fever al  Bifhops  over  fever al 
Citys.So  that  they  do  cleerly  fhew,the Offices  were  then 
difttnff ,  when  they  make  the  inference  touching  the 
name.  I  colled  then  5  how  ere  it  was  for  the  names,  at 
firft}  Bcittheythennegle&edthe  Pr^r/^offpeech^ 
yet  that  even  then,  there  was  butene  Bt/hofo  but  one  Pa- 

B  3  pr 


iz     B. Andrews s   Uf  tpijcopacy.    i.bpiit. 

flor  in  one  City.  Arid  this  holdeth  among  us,  even  at  this 
day  :  but  doth  it  fo  among  you  ?  Thus  if  you  had  pre- 
facd  touching  the  Thing  it  felf  ,  and  had  afterward  in- 
fer rd  touching  the  #<*«><?/,  (though  to  what  end  is  it 
to  make  any  ftir  about  the  name ,  when  we  are  agreed 
on  the  thing})  that  they  were  (a  little  while)  taken 
one  for  another  5  and  had  not  fpoken  fo  loofly  concern- 
ing the  promifcuous  ufe  of  the  names ,  his  Mqcjlie 
<wouldnot,Ibeleeve,  have  fct^dafhofdillike  upon 
that  paflage. 

~  jf  i  The  next  is  touching  the  Order.  Where,!  pray,con- 

fider,  whether  they  be  to  be  called  One  and  the  fame  Or- 
dcrjnhofe  Offices  are  not  one  and  the  fame.  But  that  they 
are  not  the  fame  Offices D  even  they  who  left  favour  the 
Epifapal  Order  do  confefs,  in  that  they  ever  except  Ordi- 
nation. Again., Whether  they  be  to  be  called  One  and  the 
fame  order,  wherin  there  is  not  One  and  the  fame,  but  a 
#w-and  diflincl  Impofttion  of  hands.  For,  that  in  all  Anti- 
quity there  was  Impfition  of  hands  upon  Y>i(hops%  no  man, 
I  think,  will  deny.  And,  whether  the  Anticnt  Church 
were  ofthis  opinion  5  let  ifilore  be  the  witnefs,  who 

b  EtyM.7.11.  b  in  plain  words  calls  it  the  Order  of  B'fhaprick. 

To  the  Schole,  indeed,if  you  referr  it ,  they  do  not 
agree  among  themfelvcs.  Your  AUifwdorenfis>  our  Ma- 
jor,  and  others  are  for  the  diflmBionofthe  Order.   But 
they  who  are  moil:  igainjl  it ,  though  they  will  riot  grant 
it  a  Sacrament  of  Orders  ( the  whole  force  wherof  they 
bound  within  the  Eucharifl)  yet  an  O^r  they  grant, 
fince  an  Order  is  nothing  elfe,  but  a  Porver  to  a  /pedal 
Act,  ( as,  namely ,  to  Ordain, )  which  is  competible 
to  Bifbops  only.  For  what  a  thing  were  this ,  if  that, 
from  whence  Ordination,  and  fo  all  other  Orders  pro- 
ceed, Ihould  it  fclf  not  be  an  Order  > 

For  wc  pafs  not  for  the  Church  of  Rome ,  or  the  Pon- 
tifical. 


B  Andrews's  OfBpifcopacy.    I.Epift.     15 

tificalM  they  pleafe  themfclves  with  the  name  of  Cenfe- 
cration^  let  them  enjoy  it.  Even  the  Church  of 'Rome  it 
felf  did  anciently  fpeak  otherwife.  Forinftance,  The 
Church  of  "Romc^  {{dixhTertullran  c*)  gives  out  that  Cle- 1%~        "P 
went  wo*  ordained^  S.  Peter.  Otherwife  alfo  the  Fa- 
thers, (  even  they,  whom  you  allege, )  even  S.  Hierom, 
d  who  affirms,  that  S.  zfames,  the  brother  of  our  Lord, was  d  Vt  Sir¥-  >" 
prefently  After  the  P upon  of  our  Saviour  ordained  Bifhop. 
And  of  Timothy^  e  Timothy  had  the  gift  of  Prophecy 0  toqe-  *  /*  *•**[ 
thtr  with  his  Ordination  to  EpifcoPacy.  S.  Ambrofe^  fForJ'™n  £ad 
.  unlaw  full  it  -wasy  and  might  not  be  ,  that  the  Inferior  fhoidd  Tim.}. 
ordain  thefuperior  ^  to  wit,  a  Presbyter  a  ?>i/hop.)S.Chry- 
fo(lorn  \  g  For  Presbyters  could  not  have  ordained  the  Bi-  2  InThliiP  lt 
(hop .  For  the  Latin  word.  Ordination ,  is  agreable  to  the 
Greek  2  w&™t*>  and  is  often  rendred  by  it:  nor  is  any 
word  more  frequent,  where  mention  is  of  making  B/- 
[loeps, then  that  of  *'e>TO«'«.  Theodoret^  h  Tttmwas  or-^^f  * 
dained  by  S.  Paul Bifhop  ofCreet.  ad jy . 2% 

But,  you  fay,an  Order  is  one  thing,  a  Degree  another. 
Yet  you  know  that,  in  Holy  Scriptures  y  thefe  words  are 
taken  one  for  another,  no  lefs  then  thofe.of  Bifhop  and 
Presbyter \  where  the  Deaconry  is  called^  M«*' ,  a  Degree} 
/  which,  notwithftanding,  you  will  not,  I  know,  deny'  *•$>*.$. *3- 
to  be  an  Order.  You  know  alfo  that  k  is  fo  among  the 
Father s^  among  whom  you  may  often  read  that  a  Dea- 
con^  or  Presbyter  may,  #*&<«  **$**»,  fall  from  his  Degret, 
and  be  degraded,  no  lefs  then  a  Bifoop.  Indeed,every  O- 
d:r  is  a  D*g7w  5  but  not  every  Degree  an  Oafcr.  But  both 
are  in  Epifcopacy  5  though  in  one  refpeft  an  Order ,  in  an- 
other a  "Degree.  A  "Degree,  asit  hath  a  fuperiority  even 
without  any  power  5  an  Order,  as  it  hath  a  ^w*r  to  a  (fecial 
act.  For,  were  it  a  Drgwi  only 3  it  had  been  enough  to 
have  ufed  the  word  [  p^w«  ]  the  fuperlative^  which 
denotes  a  Degree fuperw  to  that  of  [  ly^w&r  3  Presbyter >, 

the 


14.     B.Andrews's    OfSpifcopacy.     I.Epift. 

the  Comparative ,  neither  would  there  have  been  need 
to  fetch  in  a  new  word  £  e^v^^  "]  a  Rifbop,  meerly  to 
defign  a  Degree.  For  as  touching  Arcbb/fbops  tis  quite 
another  reafon:  They  are  not  indued  with  apovoerto  any 
Jpecialaci :  For  even  they,  if  they  were  not  Bt/bops  before, 
receive  their  or  dm  at  ion  from  R/fbops:  And,  as  they  are 
Arcbb/fbops,  they  are  not  neceflary  to  the  OrMnatton  of 
Btfhops :  for,  by  the  Fourth  Canon  of the  Councilor  7^/ce, 
Three  Rifbops  together  have  power  to  ordain  a  Rifbop. 

But  we  very  well  know,  that  the  Apoflles,  and  the  Se- 
venty two  Difctples  were  Two  Orders,  and  thofe  di(lin5t. 
And  this,  likewife,  we  know,  that  every  where  among 
the  Fathers  9B/fbops  and  Presbyters  are  taken  to  be  after 
their  example :  That  Bt/bops  fucceeded  the  Apoflles-^  and 
Presbyters  the  Seventy  mo.  ThatthefeTav  Orders  were 
4  Epijt.6i\     by  our  £^ appointed  in  J%5  txo»  Cyprian  5  £  Deacons 
*d  Ko^aU       mujl  remember  that  our  Lordcbofe  the  Apoflles,  that  is  ,  Bi- 
/5^j  and  Prelates :  But  the  Apoftlesy  after  the  Afcenfwn  of 
our  Lord  appointed  Deacons  for  themfelves ,  as\JMiniflers  of 
lEpift.adMAY'  their  Epifcopacyyand  of  the  Church.  Nay,  S.H*eron*i  I  With 
Mot**1"'      ™  B'fiaPs  lwl4  the  place  of  the  Apoflles.  All  [  Bilhops  ]  are 
Epitt.'ad       fucceffors  of  the  Apoflles.  And  that  is  a  famous  place  in 
Ev*g-  hi7n%,  in  him^  and  S.  Augufline,  too,  upon  the  44.  Pfalm. 

In  ftead  of  thy  Fathers  thou  (halt  have  children :  ue.  in 
fiead  of  Apoflles,  Bifbops.  S.  Ambrof^  in  i.Corinth.  12.28. 
God  hath  fet  in  the  church  [_  Caput  Apoftolos  "]  firft  Apo- 
ftles.  Now  the  Apoflles  are  Btfhops :  the  Apoflle  S.  Peter  gi- 
ving m  affurance  of  it-,  And  his  Bffhoprick  let  another  take. 
And  a  little  after.  Are  allApoIiles  I  We  faith  right :  for  in 
one  church  but  oneB/fbop.  And  mSphef.  4.  The  zsfpoflles 
aretheR/fbops. 
—  Ill  From  hence  we  have  a  fair  paflage  to  the  laft  point : 
Whether  this  Order  hehy  Divine  Right.  Very  glad  I  was 
to  hear  it  from  you  P  That  the  Authority  of  Antiquity 

fhonld 


B. Andrews*  OfEpifcopacy.    I.Epift.     i£ 

fhould  be  ever  in  great  efleem  with  you.  I  love  you  for  that1 
word :  Nor  will  it  be  the  leaft  of  your  praifes  j  if  your 
deeds  make  your  words  good.   For  my  part  it  hath 
been  my  opinion  ever,  I  was  ever  of  that  mind. 

But>or  I  am  deceiv'd  in  the  whole  ftory  of  Antiquity^ 
or  the  Apo/iolical  men^i.  e.  the  Dtfciples  of  the  Apoji  lessor 
(as  Sufebius  calls  them)  c>x»<raiy /&?y  that  converged 
with  tbem^  both  they  who  are  not  mentioned  in  Holy 
Scripture  ( as  Poly  carpus  and  Ignatius^ )  and  they  who  are 
exprefly  mentioned  (  as  Timothy  {Titus,  C^emens^ )  were 
Bt flops,  while  the  Apoftles  were  alive  :>  and  wete  coilfti- 
tuted  and  or  darned  by  the  Apofiles  them  felves. 
(*)Polycarp  by  S.  John.  (  b  )  Clemens  by  S.Peter.  '(*>?'  nUrom.  deMf. 
(  c)  TWand  (d)  fM  S.  Paul.  &  U%%2££ 

I  give  you  thefe  witnenes.  Concerning  Poly-  jni  fdys.  mcr.  descrh 
caT  re)  1te**ik C f ) Tertullian;  (g)Eufebmh  ^JgJJ^  £ 
(  h  )  Hierom.  Concerning  Ignatius :  ( i )  Eufe-  f  j )  j.y^;  ^yjrijr.  i£. 
£/7^  and  (  k )  Hierom.  Concerning  Timothy:  CO  s-«f  (™)defmp 9 
(1)  eufebtus,  (m)  R^j.ra^fc^ft^^ 
(o)  Cbryfoftom^  (p)  Epiphamus.  Concerning*  (q)'*-4  (?)Pr*fmTit. 
Tttus:(<\)Eufebif4Sy  (r)  Ambrofe,  (Q  T^-  %a^cumJlfhTl' 
doret.  Concerning  Clement  :  Qt^Tertullian,  (x)  defifmpii '  \ 
(u)  Eufebius,  (*)  Hierom.  Not  to  fpeak  of  iy)^fib  $.  4  c*x>i- 

papbroditus,  (c)  C^//^,  (d)  ^rf#//^conceming  f  a ;  */$*.  $.  $  j  tf*  /$- 

whom  we  have  the  like  teftimonies  of  the  Fa-  ™jf  \hJ™'odmt  in 

thers.  And  not  of  thefe  alone;  even  S.  Mark  (cyoligen  in\6*dRo- 

the  Svangelift,  and  that  while  the  Apojiles  lived,  *«■  (<0  c*lv.jnflim. 

who  faw  it}  for  S.  i*/*r£  dyed  in  the  (e)Eigt\th  ( c ;  Eufib.  1.  24. 
year  of  itor^full  Five  years  before  S. Teter  and 
S.Paul  were  crown'dwith  martyrdom.  And 
not  He  alone,  S.  lames  alfo  the  Apoftle.    W\Xr 

aefsforS.^r£,  (f)  Hierom  :  for.  S.  lames,  Oy^f^P^^fh 

(S-)Eufebius (ont  oiClement  and  Hegejipptts  )  ?gffT.            # 

C  (\x)Hier$m. 


\6    B. Andrews s     Ufzpijcopuy.  I.fcpift. 

(i)atSiript  a  0)>»   (h)  H/«ww.    ( i )  C^ffofiem.   (k)  Amir  oft 

Z4  Cnfitnttum  »,$7 

Could  any  then  take  it  ill,  that  you  laid,  That  Epifc** 
ficy  wu  received^  in  the  Churchy  from  th:  very  next  times 
to  the  Apoftles  ?  you  feid  too  little  :  yfru  might  have  faid 
more,  and,  if  you  had.  Antiquity  would  have  born  you 
out  5  th.it  it  was  received  from  the  Apo files  the  f fives  : 
and  that  they,  the  Apoftles  them/elves 5were  constituted  ift 
the  EptJ fcopal  order.  There  was  nothing  in  that  pallage 
of  yours  that  any  could  be  offended  with,  unlefs,  hap* 
ly,  that  in  fteadof  Q  was  called  the  Bifhp  ]  you  fhould 
havefaid,  wisthehifhop.  Forwedo  not  contend, about 
the  Tfjme^  all  the  controver fy  is  about  the  2  ; :  7 . 

This  was  done,  or  we  muftgive  one  general  dzfh 

through  all  the  Eccl:fiaft;ca!  Riftortans.  And  when  was 

it  done?  After the  Afcenfton  of our  Lord:  faith  8nrebtus. 

(»;/.*  ct.  {x^vrefcntlyuyonthe  Pa  fan  of  our  Lord  5  fo  S.Wierom. 

(o)defiript.i.  (  o)  Done,  by  whom  ?  They  were  placed  in  the  office  of 

(?)tuvr*fi  *.  Ep/fcopacy  by  the  Apoftles  5  (  p  )  TertuUhn.  By  the  Affiles  5 

U)U%Cii  {oEptphanius.  fythe  MimliersofourLord^  fo  (q)  £$fe~ 

(^defiript.  tiu$  ordered  by  the  Apo  files  3  fo  (r)  SMterow.  Con- 

(C)in  u     ftituted  by  the  Apostles-^  (s)  fo  S.Ambroft-.  Will  any 

%d  G*l.         mm  then  deny,  that  S.  lames,  S.  -JMarkj  Titus \  Clemens  > 

wereB4%tfby  Apoflolical  Right  ?  Was  any  thing  done 

by  the  Apcflles^  which  was  not  by  Apofhlical  Right  ?  Ey 

Apojlolical,  i.  e.  as  I  interpret  it,  by  Divine.  For  nothing 

Wai  done  by  the  Apoftles,  that  the  HolyGhoft,  the  Divine 

Spirtt  did  not  di&ate  to  them.Sure  ( if  by  the  apoftles) 

by  the  famt  Righ*,  which  thofe  S  rye*  were  by,  A&sj59 

whom,  Iamfure,  you  your  felf  will  grant  to  be  by 

TZivine  Right :  D. 'aeons  the  Holy  S  rip! are  doth  no  where 

call  them  5  that  is  only  a  word  of  the  church.  IhojK^ 

What  the  Apoftles  did,  they  did  by  XMvinc  Right:  and 

that 


B.  Andrews's     Of  Spifcopac}.   LEpift.      17 

that  it  cannot  be  denyed,  but  their  Deeds  (of  which  we 
are  certain)  not  only  their  Words,  or  Writings,  are  of 
Divine  Xight.  And  not  only  thofe  things  of  which  S. 
Paul wrote  to  the  Corinthians,  (t)  but  thofe  other  alfo  (C)\xm%.\^ 
which  fie  fit  in  order  at  His  being  at  Corinth^  (if  they  were 
known  to  us  what  they  were,)  were  by  the  fame  right 
to  wit,  by  Divine,  all  of  them  5  both  thefe  and  they 
from  the  Holy  Spirit,  all.  And  yet,  though  they  be  by  * 
Divine  Right ,we  do  not  fay  thefe  things  belong  toFaith. 
They  belong  to  the  Agenda  or  Practice  of  the  Church  $  to 
the  Credenda,  or  points  of  Faith,  'tis  but  improper  to  re- 
fer them. 

Tis very ftrange therfore which  you  lay.  That  jour 
Countrymen  openly  complain  of  you,  both  that  you  vndertook 
the  eaufe  ofBtfhops ;  bylike,  your  Country-men  are  ene- 
mies to  Bi[hops\  would  not  have  their  caufe  pleaded,but 
are  defirous  //  fhould  be  loft :  as  alfb,  that  you  condemned 
Aerius,  who  was  antiently  condemned  in  Afia  by  Spi- 
phanm  -,in  Europe  by  Pbilajlrw  5  in  Africa,  by  S.  Augu- 
Jline^  whofe  name,  all  the  world  over,  is  in  the  Black- 
Book  of  Hereticks  $  nor  undefervedly,  feeing,f/<?  durftop- 
pofehimfelf  fas  you  your  felf  confefs)  to  the  Confent 
and  Practice  of  the  Catholik  church.  Youfhould  rather 
complain  of  them,  who  for  this  complain  of  you. 

As  for  that  where  you  would  not  have  your  papers  to  be 
ript  up  to  the  quick,  I  know  no  body  here  that  doth  it. 
Should  any,  he  would  have  fomewhat  to  ftick  upon  in 
ihe  very  Titles  take  which  word  you  will,* £*/  of  Pa/lor ^ 
or  that  of  Calling.  They  are  both  novelties$thc  word  P*- 
&or,  ^rmfure,inthisfenfe,)andC4/Z//^,toc5and  not 
of  any  ^,but  this  lafi,  nor  of  all  that.  For,  Ipray,who 
of  die  Antients  ever  fpake  fo  ?  among  whom  you  (hall 
fcarce  find  the  word  PaBor  ufed,  but  when  they  fpcak 
of  Bifbopsx  which  form  of  fpeech  S.  P ^naught  them, « •?  *«  h  *fc 

C  2  when 


lS    B.  Andrews  O/Epifcopacy.    I.EpiftJ 

when  he  joined  Paftor  and  Ri/hop  in  our  Saviour. 

Nor  fliall  you  ever  read,  that  they,  by  that  word, 
pointed  out  fuch  as,  either  in  City  ox  Country ,  had  the 
care  of  fome  fewperfons  diftinguifhed  by  Purifies  :For 
that  the  Presbyters  (  Vrbtn,  or  Rural')  were  by  the  Ytifhvp 
defigned  to  that  imploymcnt.  Who,  indeed,  at  the  be- 
gining3wereofthcB//i5^/^w/7/:)  and  did  live,  as  you 
very  well  know,  of  the  Sport  ula  [i.e.  of  the  oblations  of 
the  Church  ]  before  the  distinction  of  Parifhcs  came  up. 

And  the  word  Calling  ( in  the  fenfe  you  take  it )  is  al- 
together as  unknown.  In  ftead  whereof  they  u(ed  the 
words  Ordination  or  Constitution. 

And  the  very  name  ofMini/leris  of  the  fame  ftamp  : 
which  they  would  never  have  underftood  to  be  fpoken 
of  any  but  a  "Deacon :  as  it  is  derived,  indeed  ,  from  ,  no 
other  fountain  but,  the  Greek,  a****^  But  we  rnuft  par- 
don you:  youmuft  fpeak  the  language  of  pur  church, 
which  hath  no  Y>i(hops  5  another  kind  of  Presbyters ,  [Elders 
they  call  them, "]  another  kind  q{  Deacons  5  and,I  addyf/w- 
ther  kind  of Calling,  then  ever  the  Antient  Qhurch  ac- 
knowledged. I,  for  my  parkin  my  bed  wilhes  for^r 
Cburchymd  fo  for  all  the  %$formed  do  wifh  this,  (that 
you  may  keep  conftant  in  the  other  points  of  F  .ith,  but 
for  Government  and  Order  that  God  would  vouchfafe  to 
you  no  other  but  that  which  He  hath  vouchlafgd  Vs9 
i.  e.  by  Bi/hops,  Presbyters  and  Deacons.  Such  as  thole  we 
readofintheHiftoriesoftheC^//^,  and  in  the  Coun- 
tils,  and  the  Antient  Fathers :  unto  whom  (or  felf-con- 
ceit  (hrewdly  deceives  me,  or)  moll:  like  are  Our :  molt 
like,  I  fay,  in  their  Order,  not  in  their  Worthy  but  would 
to  Godin  their  Worth  alfo.  And  that  no  Policy ,  no  form 
of  Government  many  Church  rvhatfoever  cometh  neerer 
the  fet\{hoffcriptureyor  the  manner  and  ufage  ofthe^/*. 
timt  Church ',then  this  which  flourilheth  among  hs. 

Thefe 


B.  Andrews  s  OfEptfcopacy.    I.Epiit.     i£ 

Thefe  I  intruft  to  you,  that,  if  you  pleafe,  they  may 
be  with  you.  But  know  withall,  that  I  have  ever  been, 
both  by  Ttjture  and  Choice  ,  addifted  to  Peace.  And  my 
Age  now  requires  it  of  me  ,  who  ere  long  rauft  be 
packing :but  cheifly  living  under  a  Km^yvhofe  word  is 
that  of  our  Saviour  5  'Rleffeaare  the  Peacemakers.  And  , 1 
aflure  you,  I  (hall  never  incline  to  any  immoderate  or 
harfh  counfels :  but  (ball  qualifie  ,  as  much  as  I  may, 
your  writings,  with  a  fair  interpretation.  For  neither 
canwebragg  of  our  happinefs,  more  then  aptiently 
S.  Auguftme  did ,  whofe  faying  it  was  5  what  we  teach  U 
one  things  xvhat  roe  are  fain  to  tolerate  ^another* 


v\- 


t-<-  c 


Tl\l.  5 


C  3  To 


fltn    D.MouIins    OfEpifcopacy.  II.Epiit. 
To  the  moft  Reverend  Father,, 

the  Lord  Bifiop  of  Winchejler. 

■OftReverendPrelate.Ifent  unto 
you  my  Book  concerning  the 
Calling  of  Fafiors:  and  with  it 
fomc  Letters,  wherin  I  ende- 
vour'dtofatisfieyou  touching 
fomc points,wherin  Ifcem'd  to yourntofiGra- 
cioHsKing  too  ill  affe&ed  to  theCWer  oiEpif- 
copacy.  Which  Letters  if  you  have  received,I 
doubt  not  but  you  will  judgeofme,asofa 
man  who  both  thinketh  and  ipeaketh  hono- 
rably of  your  Order.  I  am  not  fo  proudly  arro- 
gant as  to  oppofe  my  felf  to  all  Antiquity  >2nd 
to  re;e&  that  as  a  thing  faulty  and  v>ich$dy 
which  hath  been  received  in  the  Church 
from  the  very  next  Age  to  thcApoJiles.l  was  e- 
vcr  of  this  mind,that  concord  might  be  kept 
whole  and  intire  between  Churches ,  living 
\  hpwere  under  a  different  form  of  Eccleftajiical 
Government :  fo  that  Chriji  be  preached,as  he 
is  fct  forth  in  tke  GoJpelylk  the  Chrijiian  Faith 
remain  fafeand  found.But,among  the  reft  of 
your  Order )  I  ever  highlyeft  efteemed^tw,  for 

many 


D.Moulin  s    OfSpifcopacy.  ILEpift.     U 

many  caufes,  which  I  had  rather  acquaint  o~ 
thers^  then  yourfelfwithzll.  Asawitnefs  of 
which  my  affe&ion  I  fend  you  this  nervBooh^ 
which  the  command  of  the  Church ,  whom  I 
ferve,and  the  impudent  infulting  of  a  Court- 
lefuite  forced  from  me.    I  defire  that  you 
would  be  a  means  to  pacifie  the  Kings  anger 
againft  me  :  That  He  would  confider  with 
Himfelf^  and  weigh  it  in  an  equal  ballance, 
that  there  can  be  no  place ,  in  the  French 
Church  Jot  a  Vaftor  that  fhould  teach  thePri- 
macy  oiBijhops  to  be  of  Divine  Right $  without 
which  there  could  be  no  falvation  j  without 
which  the  Church  could  not  Hand.  To  affirm 
this,  were,  nothing  els  but,  to  damn  all  our 
Churches  to  the  pit  of  Hell,  &  to  pronounce 
the  fentence  of  condemnation  upon  my  own 
Flock,  Which  fliould  I  do,you  your felf would 
account  me  a  (enfleis  ungracious  fellow,  and 
worthy  to  be  fpit  upon  by  ail-But  enough  of 
this :  For  an  overlabored  Defence,  fpecially 
to  an  underftanding  man,  and  in  a  clear  and 
manifeft  point,  is  altogether  necdlefs.  Cod 
prefervejww ,  and  profper  your  endeavours^ 
that  they  may  redound  to  the  edification  of 

thcCkurch.  Farewell. 

Psris.  XVI.  Calends  Your  Honors  mofl:  devoted 

of  Decern^.  1 6  J  8.  Peter  Moulin* 

The 


2Z    B.Andrews's  OfBpifcopacf.  II.Epifl. 

The  Bifhops  Anfwer  to  the  Second  Epiftle. 

HePoftwasnotyet  gone,  he  ftaied 
here  a  day  or  two  ,  but  he  had  thefe 
letters^hereinclofedjfealedupasthey 
are  $  when,  lo,  I  received  your  Se- 
cond, by  the  hands  of  S.  miliar*  Bee- 
cher,  Agent  for  the  King,  lately  come 
from  you.   I  prefently  recalled  my 
former,  yet  opened  them  not,  but ,  as  they  were,  inclo- 
fed  them  in  thefe.  For  I  would  not  fo  trefpafs  as  to  com- 
mit the  fame  fault  again  5  but  rather  make  amends  for 
•my  former  tar  dine fs  with  the  qukknef oftbis  Anfwer. 
You  (hall  therfore  with  my  F/r/2  receive  thefe  Second  $ 
together  with  my  thanks  for  bothrbut  {/^Tie,^*'™/]  the 
Fir  ft  Second,  as  it  were  j  to  wit,  m  thefe  Sra?W  Letters 
my  Fir  ft  thanks  now,  and  in  the  Fir  (I  my  Second,  ( as  it 
falls  out.)  Thanks,  I  lay,  both  for  that  your  Book ,  for- 
merly fent ;  and  this  Later,  fhortly,  as  I  hope,  to  be  fent. 
For  S.  Willhrn  heecher  will  deny  either  that  it  was 
bound  (when  he  came  thence}  or  els  brought  to  him  3 
and  in  that  confederation  he  came  the  later  to  me  : 
but  he  bad  me  look  for  it ,  for  that  I  (hould  not  look  in 
vain* 

As  for  pacifying  the  Kings  anger  againJtyou,beleeveme, 
you  need  not  much  trouble  your  felt  There  is  nothing 
in  Him, which  needs  pacifying :  there  are  ways  wherby 
you  may  more  and  more  gain  him,  and  make  him 
yours :  and  it  would  be  worth  your  labour ,  if  you  do 
it.  Anddoityoumay,  ifyou  take  that  courfe,  which 

you 


B. Andrews*  OfEpJcopacy.  ILbpiit.      23 

you  cannot  learn  better  of  any  man  living,  then  othini* 
(elf.  As  for  me,  I  gladly  jacknowledg  that  you  are  more 
moderate  toward  #*,then  moft  of  your  men  common*- 
ly  are :  and,  the  more  you  convers  with  Antiquzty0wi\\ 
be  daily  more  and  more  may,  I  add,  and  much  more 
would  be,  if  your  Church  would  give,  you  leave  5  and  I 
would  to  g$X lt  would.  It  fllould  feem  that  (bee  hath 
transfcr'd  the  faults  of  Perfons  upon  Things 3  and,  for 
fome  dufe  Jnzth  taken  away  the  lawful ufe:z  fault  which 
you  fhould  by  little  and  little  unlearn  Her.  You,  while 
you  follow  and  fway  with  it,  follow  not  the  bent  of 
your  own  mind  a»d  iudgment  5  for  I  iiidg  of  your  affe-  » 
clion  by  your  fen  \  which  was  fo  well  inclin'd  toward  \ 
*^,  that  it  had  wrote  (and,  I  think,  not  againft  your  I 
mind)  that  Our  Order  ofBi/hpfs  was. d  thing  received  in  l 
the  Church  even  from  the  time  of  the  Apofiles.  And  indeed 
your  pen  had  wrote  very  right  :  Mary,  you  blotted 
out  [  of  the  Afoflles  ~]  and,  in  leiu  of  it ,  put  in  [next  to 
the  Afoftles.  ]  But  this,  I  beleeve ,  you  did  in  favour  of 
your  Church.  And, indeed, that  was^ very  true,  which  » 
you  put  in  £  next  to  the  Afoftles  3  but  that  not  a  whit 
lefstrue,  which  you  blotted  out.  Vox  that  Order  was 
not  only  from  the  esfgenext  to  the  Afoflles ,  but  even 
from  the  very  Age  of  the  ApoJlles\  or  els  all  Antiquity 'de- 
ceives us ,  and  thers  not  a  church*Hi(l&ry  teft worth 
credit.  That  all  Antiquity  is  for  tu ,  you  your  felf  deny 
not  3  and  whether  We  muft  yeeld  more  to  any  prefent 
Church,  then  XozttAmiq^ty^  judg  you.  If  I  'know  you 
well,  the  more  free  and  ingenuous!  am  in  writing  thus 
to  you,  you  will  love  me  the  better:  and  fo  fliall  I  y  ot?, 
if  you  deal  as  freely  with  me  in  it. 

Hear  me  then,  Ipray.  This  is  not  enough  for  8&  if  a 
mandonotrejeft  Our  Church  Government ^^ns  a  thing 
faulty  or  finfull :  for  this  is  it  We  ftand  upon \  that  it 

D  may 


44-     &  Andrews  s     O/gpijcopacj   I L  lipid, 

may  bt  dear,and  confefled  by  all,  that  the  Cjoverwnent 
of  our  Church  k  inch,  as  cometh  mod  neer  to  the  form 
And  manner  of  the  Antient  Churchy  or  (as  you  grant) 
that  >  next  to  the  ApoUles  3  or  (  as  you  had  once  wrote, 
and  we  contend  for't,)  of  the  Apoflolick  Church.  And,that 
you  are  of  the  fame  judgment  with  us  3  I  doubt  not.  If 
then ,  by  your  churches  leave,  you  would  once  fpeak 
out,you(houlddo  us  a  curtefie  5  if  you  may  not,  no 
difcurtefic,  if  for  the  future  you  would  tetOur  affairs 
alone.  For,  that  way  you  are  in,  it  willfcarce  bepof- 
fible  for  you,  both  to  fleafeyour  own^  and  not  to  dfpleafe 
us.   And  yet.  though  Our  Government  be  by  Divine 
Rights  it  follows  not,  either  that  there  is  nofalvation^  or 
that  a  church  cannot  [tand^  without  it.  He  muft  needs  be 
ftone-bltndythatfees  not  Churches  [landing  without  tt:  He 
muft  needs  be  made  of  iron,  and  hardhearted  ^  that  denys 
themfalvation.  We  are  not  made  of  that  metal,  we  are 
none  of  thofe  Ironfides  5  We  put  a  wide  difference  be- 
twixt them.  Somewhat  may  be  wanting,  that  is  of  D/- 
vine  Right ,  (  at  leaft  in  the  external  Government )  and  yet 
Salvation  may  be  had.  So  that  you  (hall  not  need  to 
damn  them  to  the  pit  of Hell  3  or  pronounce  the  fentence  of 
condemnation   upon  your  flock.    This  is  not  to  damn 
any   thing  ,   to  prtferr  a  better  thing  before  it  : 
This  is  not  to  damn  your  Church ,  to  recall  it  to  an- 
other form ,  that  *U  Antiquity  was  better    pleafed 
with,  i.  e.  to  Our:  but  this,  when  God  (hall  grant 
the  opportunity,  and  your  eftate  may  bear  it.    If 
we  do  but  agree  upon  tjps  p@int ,  in  all  the  reft  we 
(hall  not  fall;  out.    But  yet  we  wi(h  not  a  con- 
cord ,    that  lis  but  pieced  and  patched  up,  but  an 
intire  ,  abfolute  agreement,   without  any  piecing 
and  patching  :  which,  we  doubt  not  but,  you  like- 
wife  with  with  us. 

If 


B.Andrews's  OfSpfcofacy.  II.Epift. 

If  any  thing  remain,  I  remit  you  to  my  former: 
(for  we  are  here,  now, full  ofbufinefs.  )  Thele  I  re- 
commend to  your  favorable  acceptance  :  and  fo  I 
commend /w  in  mtne^m&  defire  you  to  recommend 
me  in  your  prayers  to  God.  Farewell. 


25 


London,    btcmh 
12,     161S. 


i 


.-  1  ■ 
- 


1 

• 

.bjis 

D  a 


To 


2 6    D.Moulin  s  OJbpjG0pacy,\i\  tttpift 


To  the  mod  Reverend  and  moft 

worthy  Pre/tfft?,theLord  Bijhop 
of  Winchester. 

Reat  Sir.  I  received  your  Letters, 
full  both  of  choice  ftuff,and  of  the 
teftimony  of  your  good  afFe&ion 
to  me.  For  although  you  feem  to 
be  a  little  more  moved  then  ordinary  ,  yet 
that  great  fweetnefs,  which  you  temper  your 
reproofs  with,  puts  me  in  hope  that  your 
goodwill  isnot  leffned  toward me3  and  that 
,  you.will  readily  accept  of  this  my  fatisfa- 
&ion.  It  is  to  my  great  profit  and  honor  to 
be  taught  by  you;  nor  amlfo  fenflefs  as  to 
contend  with  a  man  of  fo  great  learning  and 
worth.  Neither  indeed  did  I  write  to  that 
end,  that  you  fliould  write  to  me  again  :  for 
it  is  abundantly  fufficientfor  me^if  you  take 
my  Letters  in  good  part.  Nor  are  my  wri- 
tings of  any  fuch  value ,  that  they  fhould  be- 
get you  any  trouble,  or  take  you  off  from 
i  your 


,D-MGulin>s  OfEptfcopacy.  ill.bpilt.    %y 

your  more  weighty  affairs.  If  therfore  any 
-thing  was  written  by  me  amifs  ,  I  am  much 
•indebted  to  that  my  error  ,  which  iratli 
:  drawn  from  you  Co  learned  and  accurate 
Letters,  that  no  gold  can  value,and  weigh  a- 
gainft  them ;  which  I  flial  keep  by  me,  while 
I  live,as  a  moft  pretious  *&*»$  and  threafure. 

Neverthelefs,  becaufe  you  feem  to  me  not 
to  have  reached  my  meaning  in  fome  paf- 
fages  of  my  former  Letters,  you  will  pardon 
me ,  if  I  endeavour  in  thefe  to  explain  my 
mind  a  little  more  fully. 

I  fa  id  that  the  Names  of  Presbyter  and  Bi-      *  ~ 
fkop  are  taken  in  the  New  Tejiament  for  one 
and  the  fame. 

That  the  Order  of  Bifiop  and  Presbyter  t$ 
the  fame  T   _, 

That  the  difference  between  Bijhop  and    "*  — 
Pre  sbytzr  \sbut  of  Eccleftajiical,not oCDivine 
Right. 

Thefe  things  you  vrifli  had  not  been  fold 
by  me.  And  you  bring  many  Arguments  to 
the  contrary,  indeed,  learnedly  and  accu- 
rately, but  wherof  a  good  part  toucheth  not 
me.   Breifly  of  each. 

You  deny  not  but  the  Names  oCPresbyter     I  £3 
andB^jpare^rowi/cw»/l?ytakeninthe  Nero 

D  3  Tefta- 


II  ~ 


z8     D.Moulins  OfEpi/iopacjr.  IILEpift, 

Tefiament.  But  ,  you  fay ,  to  what  purpofe 
this  ?  Forfooth,  you  think  that  I  tacitly  in- 
finuate  therby,  that  the  Things  likewife  arc 
promifcuMS*  For  no  man,  likely,carps  at  the 
Name,  but  he  that  is  ill  affe&ed  to  the  Thing. 
And  you  add,  that  the  F  athers  JnthoCc  very 
places, wherin  they  teach  that  the  Barnes  are 
taken  in  the  fame  fenfe,  do  prefently  apply  a 
remedy,andadd,  that  this  afterward  was o~ 
therwife,  and  that  the  Names  y  as  well  as  the 
Ojfices^werc  and  are  dijlinct. 

Here  it  is  eafie  for  me  to  prove  toyou  tfoat 
I  had  no  purpofe  to  abufe  the  paffivity  of 
the  Navies^  therby  to  c^ndfousnd  the  Fht^ 
Ciions.  For  there  I  prefently  ap^jLy  the  fame 
remedy,  whifch^yp^triilyf^y,  was  applyed  by 
Libndeju-  the  Fathers.   For  I  fubjoin  :    Frefently  after 

r^MCi''  flif.^^M^^ji^M^r^^^ in  their  */«**/, 
as  /&^£cjei^  witnefs,  it 

was  decreed^  that  in one  City,  One  of  the  other 


ec^ualit>:  yptftldhave  Preeminence  zwmg  hh 
j^olj^giies.  And  this  form  of  'Gov.ernoreivt  was 
.every  where  received  by  a&  jQb'tuclifs.  JThefe 
very  words  wereaddeil  by  foe  there':*,  *  which 
do  abundantly  ^ipe  o^  that  iuTpition* 
k  Could 


D.Moulin  s  Oftyifcopacy.  IILEpift.  zp 
Could  I  poffibly  wifli  ill  to  your  Order,  wher- 
of  I  never  fpake  without  honor  ?  as  very 
well  knowing  that  the  Reformation  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  the  ejeStion  of  Popery, 
next  to  God  and  your  Princes,  is  chiefly  to  be 
afcribed  to  the  learning  and  induftry  of  your 
Bifhops :  fome  of  whom,being  crowned  with 
Martyrdom ,  fealed  the  Gojpel  with  their 
blood,  Whofe  writings  we  keep  by  us,whofe 
aSts  and  %eal  we  remember ,  as  no  way  infe- 
rior to  the  zeal  of  the  moft  eminent  Ser- 
vants of  God,  whom  either  France  or  Germany 
brought  forth.  Whofoever  (hall  deny  this, 
muft  needs  be  either  fenflefly  wicked,  or  ("as 
envying  Gods  glory  ,  or  fooliftily  befottcd) 
not  fee  at  high  noon.  I  defire  therfore  this 
fufpition  may  be  wip'd  off  from  me:  fpecial- 
ly,  when  I  take  notice  that  even  Calvin  and 
Be%a,  whom  they  ufually  pretend  to,  as  a- 
bettors  of  their  peeviflinefs,  wrote  many 
Letters  to  the  Prelates  of  England,  and  in- 
treated  them  as  the  faithful!  fervants  oiGody 
as  men  that  deferved  well  of  the  Church.Nor 
am  I  fuch  a  boldface,  as  to  pafs  fentence  up- 
on thofe  Lights  of  the  Antient  Church ,  Igna- 
tius, Poly  carp ,  Cypriat^  Augufiine,  Chryfojiom, 
Bafil,  the  Two  Gregories  Nijfen  and  Na^ian- 


30     D.Moultn's.  OfEpifcopacy.  ULEpift.' 

-%<r/i?all 6£ them  Bifhbps^s  upon  men  wrong- 
•  fully  made )  or  uiurpets  of  ah  unlawfull  of- 
fice. The  reverend  Antiquity  ofthofe  FirH  Ages 
jhall  ever  be  in  greater  esteem  with  me ,  then  the 
novel  device  of  any  whofoever. 
11       I  come  to  the  Secondpart  of  your  cenfure. 
Ifaid  that  there  is  but  One  Order  of  Bijhop 
^ndVresbyter.  You  contrary-wife  are  of  opi- 
nion that  the  Order  of  Bijhops  is  another  and 
diverfe  from  that  of  Presbyters  :  and  to  that 
purpofe  bring  many  teftimonies  from  the 
Fathers , '  who  fpeak  of  the  Ordination  of  B/i 
jhofs\ ^neither  do  I  oppofe  ;  for  the  Antients 
fpeak  /b,  indeed.   And  although  the  Roman 
Pontifical  abfteins  fromthat  word,  yet  the  An- 
tientBifhops  of  Rome  did ufc  it.  Leo,  the  i  .in 
his  Sj.Epiffley  which  is  to  the  Bijhops  ex  the 
Province  of  Fzetf/z^commandeth,  that  a  Bi- 
jhop,  who  is  not  rightly  ordained,  be  difpla- 
ced  :  and^  in  the  fame  EpiHle,  he  often  ufeth 
the  fame  word.   Now  between  an  Order  and 
a  Degree  you  make  this  difference  ;  that  a 
Degree  denotes  only  a  Superiority  y  but  an 
Order  is  a  power  to  2ifpecial  A3 :  That  ther- 
forc  cytry  Order  is  a  Degree ;  but  not  every 
Degree  an  Order.    Vesy  well.    For  though 
many  do    not  obferve  this  difference  of 

words^ 


RMouHn's  QfBpifcop&cy.  IILEpift.      51 

*|orda$y&  it  is  bcft  to  ufe  proper  terms;  that 
things  which  differ  in  fubftance,  be  diftingui- 
fhed  in  names  y  too.    But  thefe  do  fiot  pre- 
judice me  at  all.  For  you  fhould  hav^cdnfi- 
dered  with  your  felf  \  whom  I  hiVe  todfeal 
with.    I  difputeagainfttheFcfc^ii/^who 
make  Seven  Orders  \  Door '  keepers^Readers^Ex- 
erciftsydcolytkfy  Subdeactms^  Deacons  ^  Vresby* 
Jsrhbutithe  Order  or-chara£ler  of  Bijhdps  they 
will  by  no  means  have  to  be  diverfefrom 
that  of  Fresbyters.    Could  I,  disputing  with 
them{\ife  other  words  ?  then  fach'  as  are  re- 
ceived by  them  ?  Could  I  deal  with  iherri*- 
bout  the  Order  of  Bijhops ,  which  they  ac- 
knowledg  not  ?  Should  I  have  inveigh'd  a- 
gainft  them  for  not  making  the  Order  6f  Bu 
yfc^ualifliiift  from  that  6iWesbyttrs ,  when 
our  own  Churches  make  it  not?  He  that  fhould 
do  this^fhould  not  fa  much  cbnteft  with  the 
Church  oiKomeVj  a8  with  imVor&h.    Then  to 
whatpurpofe  is  it  toinfiff  foitiuch  upon  the 
dijiinSiionoi  Words  ?  fince  every  Order  is ,  by 
S.  PWvcaird  a  Degree.  Nor  can  a  Bifhop  be  l*fai\m 
cLepriv'd  of  his  Orders,  but  he fnuft  be  degra- 
ded* *n&  fall  from  his  Degree.  I  prav%  weigh  .,  , 
my  word*  well :  bvery  Bijhop  vsa  rresbyter>  *m  7^* 
*n4  aVrieft  of  the  Body?  cfChrifi iwl  andofihefe  7?™ 
\k  E  the 


3*     D<MouIins   VfSpijcopacy*  llUbpift. 

t^^h^bpfBMmcptah^bnt  one  Orders  olf 
plainly  appears  that  I  donotinthefc  words 
affirm,  what  ought  to  be  beleeved,  but  what 
is  the  fenfe  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

But  heer  fomewhat  falls  inywhidi  may  be- 
get a  doubt.  It  is  confefs'd  by  all,  that  every 
Bijhop  is  a  Fresbyter  :  but  a  Presbyter  is  not  a 
Deacon.  Hence  itcomestopafs^thattheflc  is 
another  manner  of  difference  betwixt  a  JSi- 
jhop  atid  a  Pw^ter^then  betwixt  a  Fresbyter 
aiui  a  Deacon.  Since  therfore  a  Fresbyter 
differs  in  Order  from  a  Deacon ,  it  feems  to 
follow  that  a  **/&#>  differs  not  in  Order  from 
a  Fresbyter. 

Nor  is  it  without  fome  doubt ,  that  you 

fay}that  Qrfter \s  a  power  tazfyecid  AB.  For 

a  power  to  a  ftecial  AB  is  given  to  many 

without  Orafer  i  as  to  them  who  are  extraordi* 

ntrily  delegated  to  th^e  performance  of  fome 

jhecid ]  a&ions*  Then  you  deny  that  Arcbbi- 

pops  arc  another  Order  from  Bifbops:  And  yet 

zaArchbifhop  hath  a  power  to  fome  Jpecial  a- 

Bions  y  as  namejy^td  call  a  Synod \  and  to  dd» 

other  offices,  >vhich  are  not  lawful!  for  23*- 

yJajpi'  i^ad  jwhach  are  noil  permitted  to  Arch- 

bifoops  themfelves  under  the  Papacy  ^  but 

when  thy  hav?  received  the  Arthiepificpd 

rail 


D.Moulin's  Of£pifcopay.  III.Epift.     3$ 

Pall  from  the  Pope.  You ,'  out  of  your  great 
wifdom,  will  confider  ,  whether  it  be  appa- 
rent by  thefc,  that  the  power  to  z  (fecial  A- 
Vtim  may  be  conferr*d,even  by  a  Degre?> with- 
out a  Diverfity  of  Order. 

The  Third  point  is  ftill  behind  :  -to  wit,  J  J  J  — 
that  I  faid  ,  that  Epifcopacy  is  by  the  .H^oft 
Antient  Ecclefiafiical ,  but  yet  not  by  Dtvtnt 
Right. Ton  on  the  other  fide  refol ve  and  marir 
tein  that  it  is  by  Divine  Right :  and  to  that 
purpofe  produce  many  examples  ofBifhops, 
S.  Mari{  j  Timothy  -y  Titus  j  Clemens  j  Pelycarp- 
S.James ,  Bijhop  of Hierufalpn  -all  who  re- 
ceived the  Order  o£  Epifcopacy  from. the  Apo* 
files  themfelves.  And  you  quote  a  great  num- 
ber of  Fathers^  who  affirm  as  much.  (Learn- 
edly all,  and  according  to  the  truth  of  the 
Primitive  Hiftorys.*)  But  what  then  ?  Why, 
fay  you ,  if  Bi/hops  were  conftituted  by  the 
Apoftles^  plain  it  is  that  the  Order  a$ Epifcopa- 
cy is  by  Apofiolical yznd  fo  consequently  by  Di- 
vine Right.  This  indeed  is  to  make  your  felf 
mafter  of  the  whole  ftrength  of  the  caufe. 
But  that  Axiom  of  yours  [  All  things  Hoot  are 
of  Apojiolical  Right  are  lih^wife  of  Divine  ] 
feemes  to  me  (  by  your  good  leave  )  to  be 
liable  to  fome  except  ions-Many  tKingswere 

E   2  or- 


24    D.Moulins  OfEpifcopacy.  HF.Epift. 

ordered  zboutEcclefiaftical?olky,wh\ch  even 
the  Church  of  England acknowledged  not  to 
be  of  Divine  Right ,  by  not  observing  the 
fame.  S.  Paul  in  i  .Timoth.v.  would  have  Dea- 
conefles  appointed  in  the  Church  \ :  But  this 
fafliion  was  long  ago  out  of  date.  The  fkme 
S.  Vanl  i.  Corinth,  xiv.  would  that,  at  the 
fame  hour,  in  the  fame  Aftenibly,  Three  or 
Four  fhould prophecy 5  i.  e.  as  S.  Atnbrofeun- 
derftands  it,  Interpret  the  Word  of  God  \  and 
that  the  others  fhould  jiidg  of  what  was 
fpoken :  which  euftome  is  long  fince  ceafed. 
The  Apojiles  command,  touching  abfti- 
nence  from  things  ftrangled  and  blood ,  was 
for  many  Ages  obferved  by  the  Ant tent 
Church :  witnefs  the  Apologetic  of  TertuUiany 
chap.  ix.  the  Council  of  Gangrd  ,  Cakon,  II. 
and  the  TrnUan^  Canon  lxvi  i.  and  there  is 
frequent  mention  of  the  fame  point  in  the 
Councils  of  Worms  and  Or leance.  yet  S. An- 
gufiine ,  in  his  xxx  1 1 .  Book  againft  Fanfiusy 
chap;:  x  hi.  faith  that  Observing  hereof  was 
generdUy  negkSted  by  the  ChriUians^  and  that 
they  who  Were  pofTes'd  with  that  fcruple 
wet  e  latigh'd  at  by  others.  You  have,not  the 
'Av~':1es  alone,  but  even,  that  precept  of 
ra&IF  I  Touching  flafyng  ojfthe  du&  of 

the 


.D.Moulins  OfEpifcopacy.ULEpi^.     %1 

4hefm^  againH  the  refnfers  oftheGdJptl.  If  any 
fhould  now  go  about  to  lay  the  foundation 
of  Chrifiian  Religion ,  among  the  Tartars  or 
Sinenfes^  were  he  bound  to  obferve  thatRite 
.againfl  the  refra&ory?  Such  things  asapper- 
tainto  Salvation  znd  to  Faith  were  ordered 
hytheJpo&les,  by  a Divine  Infpir ation  -but 
in  the  reft  they  did  often  u(c  their  own  pru- 
dence^ as  S.  ?aul  intimates,  i. Corinth. 7.15. 

Nor  are  you  ignorant ,  fo  oft  a$  examples 
are  brought  of  Bifeops  placed,  by  the  Apo- 
JtleSj  in  a  higher  degree  above  Vresbytersy  what 
is  commonly  anfwered :  vi^.  that  they  had 
not  that  preeminence,  as  BiJhopsy  but  as  E- 
vaugelift  s:of  whole  fuperiority  above  Vaftors 
fomewhat  you  may  have  in  S.Chryfoftom^  on 
the  iv.  to  the  Ephefians.  Which  reply  of 
what  ftrength  it  is,  I  had  rather  ftand  to 
your  iudgment ,  then  any  mans.  Indeed 
S.  Ambrofe^  on  that  fame  place,  makes  E<Van 
gelifts  inferior  to  Bifhops^  and  without  Seas. 
Yet,  however  you  fhall  call  Titus y  Timothy^ 
and  S.  Mar\y  whether  Bijhops  or  Evangelifts^ 
it  is  clear t hey  had  fyjhops  their  fucceffofs  and 
heirs  of  their  preeminence. 

You  determine  therfore  that  our  Churches 

do  offend  againfl  the  Divine  Right  ;  yet  fo, 

<  E  5  .        as 


ifi     D .Moulins  Uf- tpijcopicy.  Hl.bpilt. 
a?  you  exclude  them  not  from  hope  of  fa!- 
V^jtion :  but  do  think,  thftt,  in  onr  Church  Go- 
vemment,  meji  mayattain  to  Salvation  :  for 
this  you  brought  in,  in  your  Second  Letter, 
that  you  might  deal  the  kindlier  with  us,Btrt 
in  your  larger,you  liken  us,  in  this  point,  to 
Aeriws ;  who,  you  fey,  was  defervedly,  upon 
this  ground,  by  the  Antients^xM  in  (he  hlacJ^ 
Booh^ of  Hereticks.    Herein,  Great  Sir ,  I  ap- 
pealto  your  equity*    Think  with  your  felf, 
what  ftreits  you  drive  mp  to.  For,  if  I  fhould 
have  fpqke  ,  as  you  co^eiye  it,  I  could  not 
but  neceilarily  accufe  our  C\m-rch  of 'Herefiii 
and  fo  dping,  be  forced  yyffffa  ->  to  be  pack- 
ing,to  le^ve  my  ftation  here,  and  to  provide 
for  my  felf  as  I  could.  Nor  could  I  fay  that 
the  Primacy  of  Bifhops  is  by  Divine  Right  hiMt  . 
Iflioiald  brand  OHrChnrches  ^(yvhich  have  fpik 
fo  much  blood  for  ChrifV)withHerefie,For, 
queftiojQ'lefs ,  to  be  obftinately  fet  againft 
fuch  things,  as  are  of  Divine  RightyZnd  pe- 
remptorily to  gainfay  whatGtfi/  comman<ls, 
isdownright  Here  fie  ^whether  it  concern  Faith 
or  Discipline.    Befides  that  I  fhould  have 
overthrown  that  "Principle,  wherwith  eheifly 
our  Religion  defends  her  felf  againft  Ptf/?^, 
*>/*. .  That  what  things  are  by  Divine  Right  are 

Sufficiently 


D-Mdulin's  OfSpifcopacj.  IlI.Epifl; 
fifficiently  and  evidently  conteirictm  the  Holy 
Scriptnres. 

I  hear  what  you  will  reply.  That  it  had 
been  fafer  and  better  for  me,  to  have  been  fi- 
lent  in  thefe  points,  then  itch  to  be  writing 
fo  unfeafonably.  Becaufe  therby  it  comes  to 
pafs  that  I  muft-#eeeflarily  offend  our  own 
Churchy  or  your ;  nay,  haply,  both.  And  to 
tell  you  truth,  I  had  rather  have  been  filent: 
for  very  unwillingly  I fett  my  mind  to  write  • 
nor  did  I  write,but  upon  commzn&.Arndldus 
theit/ffitt,  the  K ingsConfeffor,  publikely  artd 
in  the  pulpit  ,before  His  Majejhe ,  invei^d 
againft  the  Confeffion  of  our  Church  , 
and  further  in  a  pcftilent  book  revil'd  it, 
wheniithe  mightily  infults  over  Nj&  titt  this 
qucftibn,  and  oxiioufly  fecks  to  dvtff  throw 
our  Churches  Government :  This  book  coming 
to  be  fold  all  over  France ,  through  the  high 
ways  and  ftreets,  at  the  voice  of  a  CfyeT,  did 
greatly  fcandalize  many.  Nay ,  before  this, 
the  Pulpits,  theMaxhits^theeoubt,  the 
Streets^  and  th*  vciyiBarbsb  flt<&ps,  ^ttg 
with  tkiyqheliidn;  This)  «r  th®  fileldHfkeSMM 
Warif&n  wit^  fport  tfefemfehfb  dally.  Mow 
earheftly  my  Book  was  look'd  for,  which 
(hoiildijfcdp  that  aafolencyy  k  doth  thefl^e 

appear 


37 


58     D.MouIiivs.  OfEfifcopacy.  ULEpift. 

appear,  that: ,  in  Four  months  fpace,  it  was 
nine  times  printed.  I  could  not  therfore  fhun 
this  task.  Nor  was  it  poflible  to  write  exd&- 
ly  of  that  Argument,  but  I  muft  begin  with 
the  fignification  of  the  words,  Bijhop  and 
Presbyteritind  treat  of  the  Original  of  the  Ofl 
jice.   But  here  I  took  occafion  tofpeakho- 

*  norably  of  the  Bijhop s  of  England. -■  I  derived 
the  dignity  of  BiJhops1  from  the  very  infancy 

*  of  the  Church.   Icondemn'd  Azrim.   I  faid 

*  that  S.  James  himfelf  was  hi/hop  of  Hierufa- 
km:  from  whom  in  a  long  courfe.,  the  fuc^ 
qcflion  of  Bijhop s  of  that  City  is  deduced* 
Only  thispae  thing  was  wanting,  w*.  that  I 
did  not  fay  that  our  Church  .was  heretical, 
and  did  ^rafitple  the  Divine  Right  under  hW 
feet  -which,  indeed,  I  neither;  coiddaor 
ought  to  do }  yea,  had  I  done  it,  you  your 
felf  would  have  noted  that  want  of  pru- 
deface  inme. 

This  may  ferveforthe  Three  chief  points: 
To  which  you  fiirtbejhadd  this,  *$**?  or  co- 
rollary ;  natnely  ^  your  iudgriieht  touching 
the  Title  of  my  bdokpt  which) r^pwrbtei  for 
France^  Of  t}\6  Calling  o£  $ ajitrsi  nThefe 
words,  you  fay,  are  noveUjMid  never  hTed  by 
any  of  the  dntkrps  in  thisifenfe.  lackaow- 

ledg 


DMonYuVsOfEpifcopdcy.  III.Epift.      jp 

ledg,  indeed^  that  the  word  Calling**  unufual 
among  the  Antients,  nor  taken  in  that  fenfe. 
But  we  Frenchmen  fpeak  otherwife  :  for  as 
many  as  have  wrote  o^  that  Argument, 
either  Our,  or  Papifts  ufe  this  word :  which, 
with  us,  fignifiesiomewrhatmore  then  Ordi- 
nation j  for  it  Is  taken  for  the  Office  in  felf.  If 
I  had  wrote  in  hating  fhould  have  given  this 
Title,  of  the  Office  and  Ordination  ofPaftors. 

Neither  would  you  have  all  Presbyters  and 
Minifiers  of  the  Word  of  God,  to  he  called  by  the 
name  of  Payors.  For  this  word,  you  fay,  be- 
longs only  to  Bijhops,  (and  that  the  Antients 
fpakefo.J)  Ifthisbetrue,  WorthySir,  the 
Churcbesin  France,  Germany  JLorvcountrys  and 
Helvetia,  are  flocks  without  a  Pajior.  But 
S.  Paul,ASts  the  xx  commandeth  the  Presby- 
ters of  Ephefus  ,  pafcere,  i.  e.  to  be  Pajiors  of 
the  Church,  v.  17.  &  28.  And  S.  Peter,inhk 
1 .  EpiH.  5 .  ch.  1 .  1 .  v.    The  Presbyters ,  who 

are  among  yon ,  I  exhort, Pafcite ,  feed  the 

floc\ofGod,  which  is  among  you,  taking  the  over- 
fight  therofnot  by  conliraint  but  yvillinglyyiotfor 
filthy  lucre  :  which  exhortation  to  diligence, 
andflninning  filthy  lucre,  no  doubt,  belongs 
alfo  to  the  inferior  Presbyters.  Now  to  think 
that  they  ought  not  be  calledP^Sfor^  wliom 

F  Cod 


40    D.Moulin's    OfSpifcopJicy  ULEpift. 

God  commands  Pafcere  ,   to  feed  the  flock> 
I  cannot   perfuade  my  felf.     Eut,   if  the 
Word  of  Cod  be   Vabidnm  ,    the  food   of 
Souls,   I  fee  not  why  he  fhould  not  be 
calld  a  Pajtor,  wno  doth  adminifter  this 
food.   S.  Paul  in  the  fourth  to  the  Epheftans, 
verfe,   n.    makes  an  enumeration  of  £r- 
elefiaftical  Offices  :    God  gave  fome  Apoftles, 
fome  Prophets ,  fome  Evangeltfis  ,    fome  Pa- 
ftors  and  Teachers.     If  Presbyters  who  la- 
bour in  the  Word  ,    whom  we  Frenchmen 
call  MinifterS)  be  not  understood  under  the 
name  of  Paftors,   I  fee  not  what  place  they 
can  have  in  this  enumeration  of  the  Apoftle. 
S.AugHftine,  in  his  59.  Epiftl: ,  faith,  that 
Paftors  and  DoSlors>  here,  are  the  fame. 
The  fame  thinketh   S.  Hierom ,   upon  this 
place  of  S.  Paul.   Vincentins  Lirinenfts ,   ex- 
pounding this  place ,  maketh  no  mention 
of  Paftors,  but  comprehends  them  vnder 
DoBors,    whom  he  calls  Treat* fers  ,    who 
certainly  were  a  different  thing  from  Bi- 
/hops.  But  that  Bijhops  only  are  DoSiors ,  I 
never  yet  read  any  where.   S.  Ambrofe  is  Co 
far  from  thinking  the  name  of  Paftors  to 
belong  only  to  Bijhops,  that  he  even  calls 
Readers  y  Paftors.     Readers,  faith  he,  arey 

and 


D.Moulin s     GfSpifcopacy.  IILEpitf.      41 

and  may  be  Paftors  ,  who  fatten  the  fonts  of 
their  Auditors  with  Reading.  The  term  pa- 
ftor  is  ufual  among  the  Vrophets  :  Prophet 
Ifaiah.  56.  11.  Prophet  leremiah.  10.21. 
and  22.  22.  and  13.  i.2v  Prophet  Exe* 
chiel.  34.  2.  and  Prophet  Xachariah.  10.  3. 
Which  places  who  foe  ver  {hall  weigh  in  the 
even  ballance  of  judgment,  he  (hall  find, 
that  under  the  name  of  Paftors  were  rec- 
koned not  only  the  cheif  Priefts  ,  or  the 
heads  of  the  Levites  but  all  the  Prophets  and 
Levites ,  upon  whom  the  Office  of  teaching 
lay. 

But  the  following  matter  ,  and  my 
earneft  defire  to  fatisfie  you,  hath  carried 
me  beyond  my  bounds.  I  have  too  too 
much  abus'd  your  leafure.  Yet  (hall  not 
this  my  pains  be  ill  beftowed ,  if  you 
fhall  take  notice  hereby ,  how  much  I  e- 
fteem  you ,  how  defirous  I  am  of  peace , 
how  glad  I  would  be  that  all  the  Refor- 
med Churches,  who  are  united  by  one  Faith, 
were  alfo  united  by  one  and  the  fame  bond 
of  Eccleftaftical  Government.  I  befeech  you, 
Sir ,  accept  in  good  part  this  my  ingenu- 
ous liberty,  which  truly  (hall  never  de- 
tra&   from    that  obfervance  and  honor  , 

F    2  which, 


4-z     D.Moulins  O/Epifcopacy.  III.Epiil. 

whiekv  I  fliall  ever  prafefs  before  the 
world,  J  ow  unto  you.  God  preferve  You, 
attd  grant  You  a  frefli  and  lively  old  age,' 
with  the  increafe  of  all  honor  and  hap- 
pinefs.  Farewell. 


Dated  Tarts. 


\ 


Your  Honors  mod  devoted 
.  in  all  obfervance. 

Tettr  s5Afoulin. 


: 


B. Andrews^ Of Eplfcovaty.  Ill.Fpift.      & 
&  vt  ,f  9  4  $  #  #  *  «*<*  4  *  *  #  «  #  4  *  $ 

'*  &  ^  4*  dfc1  &  &  4?   •#  '41  ^   •&   #  $*  $*   «f   '<'  f^'   '4?   •& 

The  BifhopS  Anfwcr  to  the  Third  Epiftle. 

Never  could  learn  this  trick  of  faw- 
i  ng  ,  or  (  which  is  all  one  )  of  tolling 
replys.  No,  not,  when  my  years 
were  fitter  for  it.  Em  now  old  age, 
which  of  it  felf  is  a  difeas,  and  yet 
never  cometh  without  difeafes  at- 
tending it,  plucks  naeby  the  ear,  and 
bids  me  get  me  out  of  this  cockpit,  and  rank  my  felf 
with  them,  who*e  whole  bufinefs  is  Prayer.-  Neverthe- 
lefs,  becaufe  in  this  skirmifhing,  it  hath  happen  d  to  us 
both  alike,  f  is,  that  we  have  not  reach'd  one  another  s 
meaning,!  (hall,  not  unwillingly,  more  fully  and  plain- 
ly expound  my  mind  to  you,  as  ycu  did  your  to  me. 

That  which  I  firft  meet  withall  is  but. a  flight  mat- 
ter ••>  for  I  do  not  underftand  at  all,  how  I  was  any  whit 
moremovd  then  ordinary.  Neither  do  I  remember 
ought  of  yours,  that  movd  me  more  then  ordinary} 
nay  that  mov'd  me  at  all  5  but  only  that  you  faid,  that 
fome  pafsages  of  yours  had  grievd  the  Kings  foul. 
That  word  £  greiv*d "]  greivd  me  fomwhat,  I  con- 
fefs,  and  mov'd  me  more  then  ordinary  ;  Befides  ,  no* 
thing  that  I  remember. 

His  MAJefife  had  made  three  dafbes  upon  yourB^. 
Touching  them  you  would  know  of  me,what  my  mind 
was,  what  I  thought.  Ianfwered,aswastruthj  where 
the  King  had  madef/w*,  they  ought  to  be  made. 

The  firft  place,  noted  by  the  King,  was  that,  concern- 
ing the  pdfitvty  of  the  wtrds,  (  as  you  fpeak. )  I  faid  it        I   T 

F  3  was 


44-    B.Andrewss  Of  Epijcopacy.  ill. rpilt. 

was  juftly  noted.  Here  you  did  not  reach  my  mean- 
ing jj  for  you  take  it  for  all  one,  as  if  I  had  faid  that  you 
therby  did  tacitly  in  finuate  ^  I  know  not  what.    Eut  that 
came  not  into  my  thoughts.  I  did  not  fay,what  you  did 
therby  infinuate  ,  hut  what  ethers  would  (natch  at  from 
thence.  For,queftionlefs,  fnatch  at  they  will,  as  if  you 
c't*  insinuate  ^  though  you  did  not,  as  men  are,  and  ftand 
affefted.  T,  for  my  part,  do  not  deny,  that  thofe  words 
are  taken  for  one  and  the  fame  \  and  fo  far  you  are  rjght. 
This  I  deny,  that  thofe  things  which  are  right  may  all 
of  them ,  fafely,  by  any  man,at  any  time,be  committed 
to  writing.  For  you  muft  confider ,  not  fo  much  what 
you  might  mean  there,  as  what  others  would  fnatch  from 
thence.  Our  writings  muft  be  regulated  by  that  of  the 
Apoflle  ,   2{ot  what  u  law  full \  I  ut  what  u  expedient.    Sec 
vou,  whether  this  controverfie  be  feafonableat  this 
time  5  and  whether  it  were  advifedly  done  by  you}  and 
whether  it  be  not  expedient,  "***•*■«>  **<  **w,  to  cut  off 
occafions  from  them,  who  earneftly  fnatch  at  all  occa- 
fionsoffetting  novelties  afoot.  Perhaps,  T  fear  what  is 
fafc  enough,  but  I  fear  though,  left,  an  occafion  being 
taken  from  hence,  thofe  ftirrs  unhappily  break  out  a- 
gain,  which  feemed  wholy  to  be  made  up  among  us. 

Nor  was  I  ever  of  that  opinion,  I  never  wrote  it,  that 

afterward  it  was  otherwif  done.  That  was  not  done  o- 

therwife  afterward^  which  was  dene  by  the  Apoftles 

thewfelves.h  is  S,Cbryfo/loms:were  there  mani&ifhops  in  one 

City  ?  by  no  means .It  is  S.  Hieroms:For  in  one  City  there  could 

not  be  manyBtfhopsJi  is  Theodoretsilt  could  not  bejhat  there 

fhouldbemany  PafiorsinomCtty.  Ofwhat time  are thefe 

to  be  under  ftood  ?  When  were  there  not?  When  could 

there  not  be  thofe  many  Paftors  in  one  City  ?  What,when 

S.Chryfoftom,  S.Hierom ,  Thcodoret  lived  ?  doubtlefs, 

when  die  Apolile  wrote  that  to  the  PhilippUns,  I  could 

not 


B.  Andrew/*   OfSpifcopacy.  III.Epift.     45 

not  poffibly  fay  then,  that  that  was  done  afterward* 
which  they  faid  was  done,  even  when  the  Apoftle lived 
and  wrote. 

I  faid,thai  the  remedy  was  there  applyed  by  the  Fathers. 
You  fay  that  the  fame  was  applyed  by  you.  Applyed  ^  I 
grant  $  but  truly,neither  the  fame,  nor  in  the  fame place. 

For  3  t.  their .  £  *^»^  ^  ^f'r  preventive  caution 
waspremisdbefore/A^/J^.  Ttar  £  sy«*ic»T«w  ^  yours 
is  but  a  play  fter  layd  on,  after  the  wound  is  made. 

2.  What  you  fay  by  way  of  disjunction,  viz.  either 
immedht'y  afttr  the  time  of  the  Apo files ,  or  even  in  their 
time ,  that  would  not  they  have  (aid  fb}  but,  as  truth 
was,  without  any  disjunction, without  the  former  part. 
That  it  was  done,/*  the  very  time  of the  ApoHles  %  and  by 
themfclves. 

3.  Then,  no  where  do  they  fay,  that  any  confl'aution 
was  made  about  it.  Nor  do  I  think  you  will  ever  read 
of  any  fuch  Q  *«*>  or  3  confiitution ,  in  any  Hiftory. 
We  read,  indeed,  in  the  Acls,  that  the  Order  of  Deacons 
was  confitutedby  them :  of  Presbyters ,  of  Hi/hops ,  there 
was  nee  n(litit>on;  for B^4*f  were  formerly  inftitutcd 
byC&/7/?inthe  Apofles^  and  Presbyters  in  the  Seventy 
Two. 

4*  Nor  only,  that  any  was  wtfiri  B/%>,  butthathe 
n^  a  Bifhop.  For  there  were  no  Titular  Bi/hops  then:they 
had  their  Tiame  from  their  Office  :  they  were  called 
what  they  were ,  they  **>?,  what  they  were  called. 

5.  Nor, that fhould  be  only  with  preeminence,  but 
thatfhould  be  inverted  with  power :  power ,  I  fay,  of 
Jtopofition  of  hands ,  o( commanding,  of  receiving  informa- 
tions\  of  reproving. 

6.  Nor  w/j,  to  /*£*  <w*j  Confufton ,  whichis  con- 
trary to  Orderjjut  alio  to  takeaway  SchifrnfritivSi  is  con- 
trary xoVmty.   Nor  for  theft  two  only,  but  alfo  for  *// 


q.6     B^ndrtws^OfEfnfcopacy.  IH.Epift. 

ether  endsy  for  which.,  we  faid,  that  power  was  given. 

You  fee  that  the  Father  sh^A  another  gates  remedy  for 
this  difeafe  :  and  that  thofe  fpeeches  of  yours :  It  wa* 
conjlituted^That  fhould  be cdled 5  fhoald  have  the  preemi- 
nence-, are  too  narrow  5  and  I  add  \  by  your  leave,  too 
weak  and  dilute  \  nor  the  fame  with  thofe  ,  which  arc 
the  ingredients  of  that  medicine ,  which  the  Fathers 
made. 

But  yet  I  have  a  mind  here  to  put  the  queftion  $  If 
Confufwvi comma-ily  g; owes  from  Equality  ^  how  comes  it 
to  pals ,  that  there  is  no  need  of  this  remedy  among 
you  ? 

Again  5  if  it  be  true,  that  this  Form  of  Government  was 
received  every  where  by  all  churches^  that,  which  was 
every  where  receiv'd  by  rf/7,  why  doth  not  your  Ghurch  re « 
ceive?  why  doth  She  only  run  counter  to  all  the  churches  ^ 
which  then  were  everywhere?  For  that  is  a  moll  true 
.  word;  you  faid,  and  deferv'd  an  afterisk  of  commenda  - 
tion ,  That  all  Churches  everywhere  received  this  Form  of 
Government.  Nor  were  there  ever,before  this  Age^any 
Churches^  which  were  governed  by  any  other  ^  then  by 
Bifvops, 

Wherfore  there  was  no  caufe  at  all,  that  yoxjhoiildgo 
about  to  wipe  off  that  f*fpitionr  ffor  I  had  none  of  you,) 
that  you  were  not  well/ffecledtovur  Order,  I  {hall  never  be 
induced  to  beleeve  it  $  for.  I  cannot  but  give  credit  to 
y oo,  affirming. it  in  your  Letter s>  that  your  Countrymen 
complain  of you^  for  favoring  and  wifhing  fo  well  vnto  it. 
Indeed,  that  you  wilh  well,!  doubt  not  at  all  \  but  ther- 
eto I  am  more  perfwaded  by  your  aw^then  by  your  ar« 
guments. 

For  here  you  flip  from  the  Order  to  the  Ferfom  of  B/- 
fhop}\  of  whole  Learning ,  Indujlrie ,  Martyrdom  0  you 
Ipeak  mucharid  excellently/  But  there  were  5  as  you 

know 


B.Andrewss  Gf'Spifcopac}.  lILEpifr.    47 

know,  of  old,  men  that  hated  the  Tyrant  ,  but  not  his 
Tyranny :  and  why  not  now,  men  that  love  Bifloops  y  but  \ 
not  the  Government  by  Biftiops.  Pafs  by  the  men  ther- 
fore  5  it  matters  not  for  them$  fpeak  of  the  Order  it  felf. 
For  Calvin  him  felf,  and  Beza,  if  they  wrote  to  our  Pre- 
lates, know,  that  they  wrote  likewife  to  them,  whom  you 
call  peevifb :  and  that  their  Letters.,  which  thefe  pretend 
for  their  pceviflmef \  are  produced  by  them  $  and  thus 
they  oft  reply , To  what  purpofc  do  I  \iVsczCdvins  Words  ^ 
when  I  fee  bx  Deeds  ?  For  the  Order  it  felf,  if  it  be  fuch 
as  you  would  have  it  feem,the  YS?/hops  of  England  cannot 
make  //  better,  nor  of 'Spain  w?,rfe.  I  advisd  you  not  to 
transferr  the  faults  of  Perfons  upon  Things  5  and  to  un- 
learn your  Church  that  cuftom. 

As  for  thofe  Antients,  whom  you  worthily  call  the 
Lights  of  ths  Church,  and  who  themfelves  were  Bifbcps, 
though  you  lay  much ,  yet  you  fay  not  enough.  For 
this  is  not  cxxow^^Thatyou  would  not  give  fentence  agawft 
them  5  That  they  were  not  wrongfully  made  5  That  they  did 
not  ufurp  an  unlawful! Office :  Thefe  are  but  terms  of  di- 
minution^ 2{ot  give  fentence  again  ft  5  Not  wrongfully  made  $ 
not  u fur  per  s  of  an  unlaw  full 'Office  -y  fpeak  out,  fpeak  as  the 
truth  is.  That  they  were  lawfully  made  5  ( lawfully,  if  ever 
any  )  and  did  exercife  a  most  law  full  Office :  That  our  5  at 
this  day,  are  to  be  made  after  their  example :  That  th.£ 
fame  Office  is  to  be  exercifed  by  all  Ours:  Thefe  fpeak 
home  to  the  Order,  are  nothing  to  the  Men. 

But,  whatever  become  of  thofe  paflages,!  cannot  but 
commend  your  conclusion  there  5  nor  (hall  I  ftick  to  fet 
an  afterisk  of  approbation  upon  it:  I  would  to  God  that 
might  put  an  end  to  the  whole  controverfie  betwixt 
us.  It  is  this  :  The  venerable  Antiquity  of  thefe  fir  (I  Ages 
fhallbe  ever  in  greater  efleem  with  me  then  the  new  upftart 
device  of  any  whofoever.  O  would  to  God  >  that  Antiquity 

G  might 


4.8     E  Andrews's  OfEpifcopacy.  III.Epift. 

might  be  more  and  mare  in  efteem  with  you  with  i&\ 
for  if  Antiquity  might  prevail  ,  if  thefc  new  up/fart 
devices  were  iifcarded ,  tlrn ,  fure,  the  Cxitfe  of  this 
Order  could  not  be  in  danger. 
—   II  The  Second  dafh  of  diflike  fet  by  His  Maieflu ,  and 

very  juftly,  was  at  that  place,  where  you  contend  that 
the  Order  of  B//W  and  Presbyter  is  one  and  the  fame  A  have 
fhe-Vv'd  that  it  is  not  the  fame. 

Both,  t. Becaufe  the  Offices  are  not  ihe/ame.Fov  a  Pres* 
byter  doth  not  Ord  tin  \  no,  not  inS.  Hie/cms  iudgmcnt. 
Asalfo,  2.  Becaufe  there  is  not  the  fume  lmpofition  of 
hmds^  but  a  neve  one  in  a  Br  flop. 

Again,  3.  Becaufe,  among  the  Fathers,  Ifidore  clearly 
calls  it  the  Order  of  Bifhps. 

And  laftly,  4.  Becaufe  thofe  Two  Orders  were  diftin- 
guilhed  by  Chrift  in  the  Apoflles^  and  the  Seventy  Two. 

Here  you  produce  to  us  the  Title  of  the  Pontifical-^ 
which  is  concerning  Confecratio  ?,not  Ordination X  fhew'd 
that  the  Antient  Btfhops  3  even  of  %ome  it  felf ,  fpake  o- 
therwiie  :,  otherwise  the  later  Popes.  Among  the  Anti- 
ent■,  that  the  word  Ordination  was  moft:  ufual,  and  moft 
approved. 

You  appeal  to  the  Schole.  I  acquainted  you,  in  what 
fenfe  the  Schole  calls  them  thefame^ov  not  the  fame.  The 
fame  .in  reference  to  the  Body  ofchrift  ^  upon  which  they 
texminzttheir  Seven  Orders :  About  the  Bo  iy  of  Chyifi  a 
Presbyter  doth  as  much  as  a  Bijhop.  You  your  felf  (ay  as 
much  :  Of  thefe  in  refpecl  of  the  Body  of  Chrifl,  the  church 
of  Rpme  makes  but  one  Order.  Hot  thefame^  if  you  tefpeft 
the  power  to  fecial  A&^  viz,,  coordination  D  which  is 
peculiar  to  a  Bijhop.  This  is  not  mine,  as  youimagin  d,but 
the  definition  of  Orders  ,  all  the  Schole  over.  Nor  yet 
that  difference^  which  afterward  you  put  upon  me :  both 
of  them  are  from  the  Schole  $  both  definition  and  differ- 

ence. 


B.Andrewvs  Of  Fpifccpjtcy.  IILEpift     $9 

me.  Thefe  things  ,  if  you  would  fpeak  SchotaftcaUy, 
were  riot  to  be  deny  a  by  you  ,  who  appeald  to  the 
Scheie. 

But  to  what  purpofe  do  you  hyjhatyou  deal  with  or9 
that  you  diftute  againft  the  Pontificiansjwho  will  not  have  the 
Order  ofBf/hops  diftinclfrom  that  of  Presbyters  >  And  yet 
prefently  you  fubjoin :  Ought  1  to  inveigh  againft  them, 
(^viz.  the  Pontificians  )  becaufe  they  do  not  make  the  Or- 
der ofBt/hops  dtftincl  from  thit  of  Presbyters ,  -when  Our 
Churches  do  not  make  it  neither?  He  that  fhould  do  this, 
fhould  not  fo  much  conteft  with  the  Church  of  Rome ,  as  with 
pit  own.  You  difpute  therfore  againft  them,  but  yet  you 
will  not  inveigh  zgamfi  them  :  you  difpute  againft  the 
Ponti fie tans  and  yet  you  allege  their  Pontifical.  You  di^ 
fpute  againft  them  3  yet  your  own  Churches  do  the  felf 
feme  thing,  Ncr  yet  will  you  affirm,  what  ought  to  be 
bfleevd  y  but  what  the  Church  of  Rome  thinketh  :  which 
thinketh  the  very  fame  that  your  church  doth  5  and  your 
Churchy  I  beleeve,  you  woul  d  have  to  be  beleev'd.  You 
do  not  therfore  conteft  with  the  Pontificians  ^for,  I  trow 
you  have  no  mind  to  conteft  with  your  own.  'Twere  a- 
gainft  your  Religion  fo  to  do.  Neverthelefs  your 
Church,  as  you  confefs,  doth  the  fame  thing  in  this 
pointthat  the  Roman  doth. 

You  fay  it  is  heft  to  ufe  proper  terms ,  that  the  thtngs 
which  differ  in  fubftance  be  diftinguifhed  tn  Name  rand 
yetinthe  fame  page,  afterward ,  as  if  you  were  fom- 
what  angry,  you  ask,  To  what  end  is  it,  to  flick  fo  much  up- 
on the  diftinflion  of  Words  ?  To  what  end  then  is  it ,  to 
make  proper  words,  which  are  miAzf roper  for  no  other 
end,  but  for  diftinclion  >  If  this  be  to  no  end,  it  is  better, 
truft  me,  neither  to  ufe  proper  words ,  nor  to  make  any 
words  ztdl  proper  $  for  wemuftufethe  tetter9both  you, 
andwr. 

G  2  Not- 


53     B.Artdrewss  OfSpifcopacy  ULEpift. 

Notwithftandingthis,  why  do  you  rejcft  the  di/lin* 

tf'ton  of  words,  here?  Becaufe,  every  Order  (  you  fay )  is  * 

Decree.  What  then  ?  Since  every  Degree  is  not  an  Order, 

ifwewillufe  proper  words.  Deaconry  .  in  S.  Paul,  is  a 

Degree  5  and  the  /£/»*  is  an  CW*r  with  all  men.  But  Anb- 

deaconJb;p  is  a  new  D<grr*,  and  yet  no  Order.  2{pr  can  a 

hi/hop  be  pitted  of  bis  Order,  but  be  muff  be  degraded  ( fay 

you  )  or  fall  f rem  his  Order.  Yea,  but  he  may  be  degra- 

ded,  though  he  be  not  anted  of  bis  Order  5  for  of  his  Order 

he  can  no  way  he  outed.  For  after  (that,  which  they  call ) 

D^"^//^,thcrereir)ainetha^«»^  to  the  Acts  of  his 

Order :  the  ufe  of  which  power  may  be  inhibited  \  the 

power  it  felf  cannot  be  taken  away. 

But  here  feme  fcruplesarife  in  your  mind.  The  Fir  ft 
is  :  that  every  fyfbjj>  is  a  Presbyter :  very  true  that ,  and 
confeft  by  all.  But  a  Presbyter^you  fay,  is  not  a  Dea  on. 
Among  you,  haply,  he  is  not5according  to  your  novell 
device  :  But  with  that  R  'v trend  Antiquity  (  which  you 
fpeak  of)  he  is :  Nay,  then,  a  B  [bop  himfelf  is  a  Deacon: 
Read  S.  Chryfofiom ,  Even  a  B'fhop  xvm  cau'd  a  Deacon ; 
wherupon  S.  Paul,  writing  to  Timothy  ,f aid  y  Fulfill  thy 
Deaconry  3  to  him ,  being  a  ¥>JJ)op.  Whence  alfo  it  is ,  that 
many¥> '[hops now  adays  write  ,  to  my  Felloxx -Presbyter,  to 
my  Felloe-Deacon.   Read  S.  Ambrcfe  ,  on  the  4.  to  the 
Spheftans.  For  all  Orders  are  in  a  Bifiop  5  becaufe  he  is  the 
firftPrieJl,  i.  e.  the  Prince  of  Priefls.  And,  on  the  I.  to  the 
Corinth  :  1 2.  Though  Apofiles  he  Prophets  too  \  for  the  first 
Degree  bath  all  other  vnder  it.  I  may  truly  therefore  in- 
ferr  the  contrary  %  Seing  a  Bi/bop  differs  not  from  a  Pres- 
byter, by  any  other  way  of  difference  t  then  a  Presbyter  doth 
from  a  Deacon  \  hut  a  Presbyter  differs  from  a  Deacon  in  his 
Order  ^therf ore  it  is  agreable ,  that  a  hiiloop  differ  from  a 
Presbyter  in  his  order.  This  ever  feem'd  agreable  to  the 
content  of  Antiquity.  I  wonder  that  thefe  things  fcapd 

you : 


B. Andrews's  OfSpifcopacy.  III.Epift.     51 

you :  for  I  dare  not  fufpeft ,  that  what  are  fo  obvious 
to  ^are  unknown  to  you.  But  the  Deaconry,  inufc  a- 
mong  you^  deceived  you }  a  meer  ftranger  //,  I  (peak  it 
boldly,,  to  all :  Antiquity  (with  whom  Deacons  were  ever 
one  part  of  the  Clergy,) 

The  Second  fcruple.  That  Order  is  a  power  to  fecial 
Ac?,  I  fay  not  of  myfelf  5  the  whole  Scheie  faith  fo  5  it  is 
the  definition  of  Order  received  in  the  Scholes:  fpeak  you, 
if  you  have  another  ^for  I  remember  not  that  I  have  any 
where  read  of  any  other.  Your  fcruple  here  arifeth  from 
them  y  who  (  fay  you  )  are  extraordinarily  delegated  to 
the  performance  of  certain  Acts.  I  rejoin  :  What  have  they 
who  are  delegated  without  Order \  to  do  with  OrdertThe 
very  word  Order  requireth  that  this  be  underftood  of 
crdinary  power. 

The  Third  Scruple,  An  Archbifh:p  hath  a  power  to  a 
(pedal *sl3.  What  Aft?  To  call  a  Synod.   I  eas  you  of 
this  fcruple  alfo.  This  A  61  is  not  (pecial  to  an  Archbifbop: 
for  a  ¥>>[hip  exercifeth  the  fame  *Aci :  He  doth  as  much 
call  a  Synod  in  hisDiocefs  ,  as  the  other  doth  in  his  Pro- 
vince. Though ,  if  we  will  fpeak  truly,  the  caWng  of 
Synods  is  ajpe.  til  A6lto  neither  of  them^  but  is  by  Delegation 
from  the  Pristce ;  by  whofe  Laws  there  is  fpecial  provi-   . 
fion  againfr  unlawful  Aflemblys.  You,in  your  wifdom, 
fee,  that  nothing  appears  here,  why  either  by  a.  Degree 
any  Power  may  be  conferd,  or  by  an  Order  may  not  be 
conferd. 

The  Third da/h  ofdtjlike  was  upon  your  denying  Epifco-     HI  *— 
pacy  to  be  of  Divine  Right,  you  grant  it  to  be  of  Apoftoli- 
r<*/.But  that  ferves  not  you  to  make  it  be  of  Divine  Right. 
2^0)  not  among  */,  who  do  not  obferve  certain  things  which 
-were  appointed  by  the  Jpoftles. 

For,  i .  not  Widows.  I  read  of  no  command  there  for 
the  appointing  of  Widows  :bx\%  for  Sphefm  ^  and  thofc 

G    3  Churches^ 


5J     B.Andrews's  Of Epifcopacy.  III.EpilT. 

Churches ,  which  had  Widows ,  there  is  a  command 
touching  their  Age.  The  inftitution  of  widows ,  was 
left  free  to  every  church.  For  none  were  to  mantem 
Widows,  unleft  they  would  $  and,  indeed ,  they  could 
not  be  manteined  among  the  poorer. 

Not,  2.  thxtCuflim  for  three  or  four  to  prophecy  At  one 
hour.  But  that  Cuftom  was,  cleerly,  extrAordinary  3  and 
the  extraordinary  gifts  ceafing,  that  ceafed  too. 

2\^>f,5.  toAhftein  f rom  things  fir  Angle  d,&  blood.  Yea, 
but  that  was  temporAry  ,  not  appointed  by  the  Apoflles% 
with  any  other  intention,  then,  to  be  in  force ,  during 
the  non-burid  of  the  SynAgoge  5  the  Symgoge  once  bu- 
ried, to  be  free,  to  obferve  or  not. 

So  your  firft  inftance  was,  not  ncceffkry  $  your  fecond, 
not  ordimry  $  your  third,  temporAry,  not  perpetuAl.  Thefe 
do  not  make  a  Divine  Right. 

But,  that  the  Precepts  of  the  ^fpofllcs  may  not  be  of 
Divine  Right,  you  will  not  have  that  ofchnfl,  touching 
Jhaking  off  the  dtsfl  of  their  feety  to  be  fo,  neither.  But ,  in 
txwth,this\$r\o  Precept  ;but;ifa  Precept,  ofDivin? Right. 
For,  I  hope ,  you  will  not  fay  that  Chrifl  commanded 
this  >ufing  his  Prudence,  without  Divine  infpirAtion.  No 
man  ever  underftood  that ,  *«t*  p&,  according  to  the 
Letter  5  and  that  upon  this  ground  }  becaufe  it  was 
fometime  ohfervei,fometime  Alter  ed,(ometime  quite  omitted: 
not  according  to  the  Letter,  I  fay ,  but ,  <****  «a  *>**&  , 
according  to  the  mind  of  the  Ipeaker.  Whofe  mind 
was,  that  fuch  were  to  be  given  for  defperate,  whether 
with  or  without  ufing  the  Ceremony. 

But,  be  more  fparing,  I  pray,  of  that  point,  of  the 
ApoflH  of  time?  ufing  their  prudence.  For  it  cannot  be  faid 
or  writ  without  great  danger ,  th.it  the  Apoflles  in  fome 
thing*  badD:  vine  Infftiration  ,  m  the  reft  did  often  ufe  their 
*m* prudence  -y  and  that  in  their  writings  which  are  ex- 
tant* 


B.Andrews's  OfEftfcopacy.  III.Epift-      53 

tant.  For  even  that  very  place.,  where  w?u  >,.>&«  \s^  at- 
cording  to  my  judgment ,  you  know  3  is  concluded  with 

4«*  .Ai  >L«yi  jri^vjt  es;  ;#/,  j  ##/  I  think  dfo  that  lhAvethe 
Spirit  <f God.  fo  that  his  very  >»•>  ,  his  judgment  had 
the  di&ate  therofc  from  the  S/>/V#  of  God.  As  for  that 
place,  which  you  quote,  if  it  were  not  written  by  Di~ 
vine  infpiration,  but  by  humane  prudence^  we  are  to  fcorc 
it  for  Apocryphal.  How  then  ?  are  we  for  making  an  in- 
dex,  and  for  Expurging  the  T^ew  refitment  ?  For  fepa- 
rate  we  muft  the  pretious  from  the  vile.  What  were  di- 
&atedby/^w*^/>m/<?/?fl*will  never  ftand  in  conjun- 
ction with  thofe  which  were  by  Divine  infpiration. 

But,  although  there  be  weight  enough  to  confirm 
this  caufe,  from  the  Right  and  maner  of  the  Apoftles.yet, 
you  may  remember ,  that  I  dcriv  d  this  diftinftion  of 
Orders  higher,  viz.  from  Chrift  our  Saviour  in  the  Apo- 
files ',  and  Severity  Two  Dfiples.  That  it  is  every  where 
among  the  Fathers^  and  clearly  confefsed  by  them  3  that 
B'tfhops  fuccceded  the  Apoftles,  and  Presbyters  the  feventy 
Two.  I  cited  Cyprian ;  But  Deacons  muft  remember ,  how 
our  Lord  chofc  Apoftks,  /.  e.  Bifhops  and  Prelates  5  but 
the  Apoftles,  after  the  Afcenfion  of  our  Lord,  Appointed 
tothemfelves  Deacons,  as  mini  for s  of  their  Epifcopacy, 
and  of  the  Church.  That  thofe  Seven  were  inftituted, 
Atts  vi.  by  the  Apoftles  3  butno?w^r/Dbut  after  the 
example  of  the  Seventy  Two^  nor  Bifhops,  but  after  their 
own  pattern.  T^Or^rrtherfore  hath  the  ftrength  and 
finews  *herof,not  only  from  the  Apoftles, but  even  from 
our  Saviour  himfelf. 

Would  you  have  me  fetch  it  yet  higher  ?  even  out  of 
the  Old  TeJlament^nA  there  from  theDivine  Law  it «fclf  ? 
S.  Hierom  doth  :  And  that  we  may  know  that  the  Apofloli- 
cal  traditions  were  taken  out  of  the  Old  Teftament^to 
Aaron,W  his  Sons0andtheLcvitcs  were  in  the  Temple, 

that 


54-    B;Andrews's  OfEpifcopacy.  ULEpift. 

that  do  Bifhops  ,  Presbyters ,  and  Deacons  chatleng  to 
themfelves  i*  the  Church.  S.Ambrofe  doth,  in  both 
thofe  places,  I.  Corinth.  \  i .  and  Sphefa.  fpeaking  of  the 
Zfe\vs,Whofe  tradition  ,  faith  he,  bath  pa]] ed  over  to  us. 
iomitt  Aaron-*,  left  you  fhould  rejcft  him  j  as  a  Type  of 
Christ.  Overh/s  Sons,  the  Pries!  s,  was  there  not  in  their 
feveral  families  fcMatfU  i.e.  a  Prelate 5  or,  as  is  faid 

fMw»4  **    telfwhere,    *v^&.  i.e.  ^hi/hop.  Over  the  Gerfonites. 

vcbifli69o  1  ^?w-  J'  2 4- Over  the  Kohathites.  verf.  30.  Over  the 
7*  Merarites.  verfe  5  5.  Was  not  Eleazar  there5even  while 
his  Father  was  alive,  CD^M?1  KMPl ,  as  if  you  would 
fay,  Prelate  of  Prelates,  verfe  32.  Who  is  elfewhere 
called  yi^  yzi  as  if  you  would  fay,  Archbifhop. 
There  are  therefore  in  the  Law ,  C3^V^1>  ? — -^h^, 
CZmV3  i-e.  Prelats  or  Bifhops,  P  r Jeff  f,  and  Levites:ln 
the  Gty^/,  The  Apoffles,  the  Seventy  Tiro,  and  thofe  S*- 
w#,  -^5j  vi.  In  the  Aro  files praflife ,  which  was  taken 
from  thofe  Tw  Qthe  £dn?  and  Go/pel*]  bifhops,  Presbyters, 
Deacons.  Rut  do  not,  do  not  think ,  thatthis  was  by  A- 
pofiolical%ight  alone  $  if  there  be  in  the  Gofptl,  if  in  the 
Law,  any  Divine  Right,  this  Government  \$  not  without 
example  in  both,  it  is  founded  on  both.  Either  then 
there  is  no  Divine  Right  in  the  form  of  Church  govern- 
ment,  and  then  wellfare  Amfferdam^  where  fo  many  hu- 
mane prudences  as  there  are  ,  fo  many  forms  of  Govern- 
ment (kill  be  fet  up.  Or,  if  there  be  any  Divine  Right :it 
is  in  Thofe  Three,  it  is  for  us. 

And  now  to  your  skirmifhes  of  lighter  confederation. 
That  I  know,  what  ufethto  be  anfwered,  by  the  Vul- 
gar, concerning  Timothy  and  Titus.  Add  this  too,  that 
I  know,  that  many  things  are  ill  anfwered  by  the  Vul- 
gar. But  what  is  anfwered  by  the  Vulgar?  that  they 
were  Eyangeli/ts.  Who  affirms  this  ?  either  the  Vulgar, 
or  they  that,  out  of  fome  mans  novel  device,  have 

fpread 


B.  A  n  d  rews  s   Of  cpifcopacj.  1 1 L  Epjft.     55 

fpread  thefe  doubtfqll  fpeeches  among  the  Vulgar  •For 
none  of  the  Antients  ever  fpake  fo\no  Hiflory  can  wit- 
nefs  it.  Bvit  Hiflory  doth  witnefs,  that  Timothy  and  7/ta* 
were  Btfops.  Epiphanius^  Chyfoftom ,  Amhrofe  3  Hierom, 
Theodoretfay  it.  That  they  were  Evangelijls  no  in  an 
everfaid,  wrote,  or  dream'd,  before  our  Age.  This 
Vulgar  anfwer  is  a  Vulgar  forgery. 

Therfore,  whether  Evangclifts  were  fuperior  or  in- 
ferior to  B//hops,\t's  nothing  to  u*  5  fince  thefe^by  no 
means,  were  Evangelifis.   Who  faith  fb  >  S.  Chry follow. 
But  I  am  to  mind  yon,  that  he  corrects  what  he  had 
fpoken,  with  fome  diffidence,  there,  concerning  Evan- 
gelttts.  For  that  nothing  can  be  colle&ed  out  of  that 
place,  Sphef.  4.  concerning  the  Priority  of  any.  But  we 
may  fetch  it  from  another  Eftjlle,  1.  Corinth.  12.  28. 
where  we  have,  ^™,  sw^**,  vfy    y?/*/? ,  fecond^  third  : 
But  Evwzelifts  appear  not  there.    Befidcs  that  they, 
whom  you,  with  tne  Vulgar,  would  have  to  be  count- 
ed Evangelifis  (  Timothy ,  and  Titw  )  are  from  thence 
placed  among  the  Paffors  ,    i\U\*>»  rpoMvsWw  i&»®- ,  /#- 
rr«7/  'dwith  the  care  of  their  fever  d  Provinces ,  *#</  />/  £<?-  , 
nerd of  all ',  but  not  among  Evangel? fls\  Aqmlazwd  Pr'u 
f:itlx  are  to  him  Evangel fts:  that  I  cannot  but  wonder, 
what  you  meant  to  mention  that  place.  For,  from  that 
place  of  S.  .Paul.  2,  Timotb.  4.  v.    if  you  will  hear 
S.  Chryfoftovt,  you  fliall  aflbon  make  Timotbv  but  a  ZV4- 
jw*,  from  the  fulfilling  Q  J1?******  ^)  o£  the  Deacon/hip ,  as 
an  Evangelifl  ^  from  the  work  of  an  Evang'li&.^'Do 
not  you  therfore  make  fuch  a  disjun&ion ,  either  B/- 
^&<p,  or  Evangelt ft.  Evangel/ frs  they  were  never  reputed 
by  any,  but  fome,  I  know  not  who,  two  or  three  days 
ago.,  whom  any  upftart  device  pleafeth  better,  then 
reverend  Antiquity.  Do  we  give  credit  to'  Antiquity  f 
They  were  Bijhops,  they  had  Jlijkff  their  fucceflbrs, 

H  their 


f6     B.  Andrews's  Of  Epifcopacy.  HI.Epifh 

their  heirs  both  m  Superiority  and  Power. 

You  demand  then ,  Whether  your  Chmches  fin  a- 
gainft  the  Divine  Right}  I  did  not  fay  it  3  this  only! 
iaid,  that  your  Churches  wanted  fomewhat  that  is 
of  Diviroe  Right  :  wanted  ,  but  not  by  your  fault, 
but  by  the  iniquity  of  the  times.  For  1&S2X  your  Trunce 
had  not  your  Kings  fo  propitious  at  the  reforming  of 
jour  Church ,  as  our  SngUni  had :  in  the  interim,whcn 
god  (hall  vouchfafe  you  better  times,  even  this, 
which  now  you  want ,  will ,  by  his  grace,  be  fup- 
plyed.  But,  in  the  mean  while ,  the  %jme  of  hifeop, 
which  we  find  (b  frequent  in  the  Scriptures,  ought  not 
to  have  been  abolifti'dbyyou.  Though  to  what  pur- 
pofe  is  it  to  abolifh  the  ^j*w*,  and  to  retcin  the  Thing} 
(For  even  yowretein  theTA/^,  without  the  Title  $ 
and  they  Two ,  whom  you  named ,  while  they  lived, 
what  were  they ,  but  Bi[hops  in  Deed ,  though  not 
in  Name*)  feing,as  he  in  the  Poet  faith  excellently ,there 
is  farce  any  man  that  would  wifh 

To  be  a  Tyrant,  and  not  to  tyrannise. 

That  Aerim  roso  put  it*  the  bluk  book  of  Hereticks  (  and 
worthily  )  whofoever  (hall  belecve  Epiphtnim  9  phi- 
kftnm ,  or  S.  Auguftine ,  muft  needs  confeft.  And 
you  that  condemn  Aerius  ,upon  what  confideration  do 
you  condemn  him>  What,  becsufe  ho  oppo/d  hsmfelf 
to  the  oonfent  oftbcCstbolike  Church?  He  that  is  of  the 
fame  opinion  doth  not  he  alfooppofc  himfelf?  and  is 
to  be  condemn'd  upon  the  fame  confideration?  But, 
if  there  be  any  error  9  (b  k  be  not  with  obftinacy  of 
mind,  though  he  think  as  ^r/«*  did,  his  caufe  will 
be  far  from  what  the  caufe  of  Aerius  was.  Do  not  you 
therforc  bcukc  yourfclfro  thofc  tragical  expreffi- 

OUS 


». Andre ws's  u/Ept/copacy.  wjutspiit.     57 

ons  of  damning  to-the  pit  of  Hell  9  of  giving  (interne  of 
damnation  against y»*r  Churchy  againft  her  that  treads  un- 
derfoot the  Divine  Right.  Ther's  no  neceffity  of  that. 
Weigh  only  calmly  what  is  fpoken*  To  vote  that  2 
thing  were  fo,  is  not  to  devote  >  if  it  be  not.  Awifi 
\s  no  fentence  of  damnation.  To  want  fomewhat  that 
is  of  Divine  Right  >  is  not  to  tread  under  foot  the  D/- 
vjne  Right.  Letbutobftinacyandperverfnefebewan-  - 
ting,  it  will  benoherefy.  Arid,  if  itbehcrefy,  (being 
about  a  point  of  Dfctpline  )  it  will  not  be  among 
thofe,  which  S.  Ptttr  calls  «M**«^«>>d*mnablt  he- 
rejtet. 

-  But  for  be  it  from  me  that  I  fhould  drive  you  to  any 
ftreits. Fox  neither  would  I  have  you  hold  your  peace, 
bemgfo^^^^/^^/^&//.Nay1)butwrite3byalmeans 
write :  but  yetD  when  you  write,fo  mantein  your  own, 
that  you  pinch  not  upon,  I  fay  not,other  mens  matters 
which  belong  not  to  you  5  yes,  which  fomewhat  con- 
cern you:  (for  our  affairs  are  not  meer  ftrangers  ta 
you.)  And,  fee,  heer's  alargfieldfor  you,  wheria 
you  may  fhew  the  fharpnefs  of  your  wit,  (which 
indeed  is  excellent.)  But  donor,  do  not  hope  that: 
you  can  itomryta  ,  play  on  both  fides*  Tom  ovtnyotti- 
eotnpiawof '  you\  Ours  need  no  fuch  defence  }  So  you: 
will  loofe  the  thanks  of  either  fide. 

But ,  although  thefe  things  be  evidently  enough  con* 
teinedin  Holy  Script uresy  to  my  whofe  eye  is  fingle,  yet 
is  not  that  Prin  iple  fo,  as  you  have  laid  ifc.  For,  not 
what  belong  to  Divine  Right ,  but  what  belong  to  Fdith\ 
and  Good  manners  [  are  evidently  enough  contemed,] 
But  thefe  are  not  adequate  to  DivineRighh 

Howbeit^  you  might  well,  you  mightha**.wro*$ 
(as  you  fpeak ) «xa$ly,  had youbegun, nol  wheretbe 
words -were \promifcmm^  bi&,  whe^jtbe  Things  being 

H  2  always 


58      B. Andrews s  Uf-bptjccpacji.  lILbpiit. 

always  di(lintt\  the  fignifcation  of  th  words  began  like- 
wife  to  be  difltncl.  It  was  poflible  for  you  to  have  ab- 
fteined from  words  .tq-uvocal^  nnfufed^  and  fr*nnfcu* 
oujly  taken!)  nor  <did  aqty  neceffity  enforce  you  to  be- 
gin there,  i- 

You  might  alfo  have  balk'd  all  occafion  of  diverting 
to  us.  Tour  defign  w.u  touching  Bifhops )  you  were  to  treat 
of  them,  and  of  the  Office  it  felf  Of  the  Bifhops  of  Eng- 
land  to  what  purptife?  Doth  England  make  that  lawfull, 
whichoutof^/^Wisunlawfull?  The  tfWttofmen, 
wherever  they  are  #  muft  be  taxed:  the  office  it  felf  5  in 
what  country  foever3is  the  fame^of  it  felf3in  it  felfjby it 
(elf  lawfull :  Nor,  if  the  Mfhops  be  not  good 5 is  the  Of- 
fi  e  of  B'fhops  not  good  :  Yea  but  let  the  Office  of  B/- 
fhops  be  3  let  Them  be  no  .Btfbjps  3  unlefs  they  make 
good  their  Name. 

But  here, 1  know,  the  King  would  fet  an  afterisk  of 

*  approbation.  When  you  derive  Eplfcopacy  from  the  very 
m  infancy  of  the  Church.  W  hen  you  acknowledg  I  S.  fames  to  bo 

Bifbop.ofHierufalem^  andalongfucceponofBi^opSy  there^ 

*  deritfd  from  him.  when  now  again  yu  condemn  Aerius. 
See  3  you  have  Three  aflerisks  for  the  Three  da(hes. 
For  thefe  things  aremoft  true  5  and  according  to  the 
judgment  of  the  ssfntients ,  even  of  Irenes ,  who 
leads  the  train  of  the  Anti?nts.  The  true  profepon  is 
the  doctrine  of  the  Apoflles^  and  the  antient  ft  ate  of  the 
Churchy  through  the  -whole  world,  is  according  to  the 
fuccepon  of  'Bi/hops Jo  whom  They  delivered  that  Churchy 
which  is  in  every  place  $  which  h*th  reached  even  unto  m. 

Somwhat  I  added,  afterward,  concerning  the  novel, 
upftart  name  of  Calling :  and  fo  otPafiors  $  (  as  they  are 
now  in  ufe  with  you.)  Touching  that  of  Callings  yoa 
do  not  deny  but  that  it  is  vhufual  :you  ufedj  fuppofe  a 
f^^the  figure  of  cxtentmon$for  it  is  fo  unufual,that  it 

is 


B.Andrews*  GfBpt/cop^yili.Epilh     $$> 

is  not  at  alLC^/^indeed^s  fometime  ufed  for  the  Of- 

fi-e^  for  Ordination  ^  never.  But  neither  do-'you  deny 

'what  I  obfervcd  touching  that  word,  Paflorsy  Nor  do 

y<>n  produce  nny,:  either timong  thofe 'Ant'unts \  or  the 

Inter  Writ  erf,  before  our  Age,  tfftt  was  fo  call'd,  viz.  a* 

Patter^  who  was  not,  indeed,  a  Biffop.   Only  3 1  know 

not  how,  you  heap  up  many  things  together,  but  all 

betide  the  matter;  that  you  leenrndt  in  therta  neither 

to  have  reachd  my  meaning.  For,  what  if  I  grant  all 

that  you  allege  ?  That  par  flocks  are  not  without  aPjflor ; 

(ask  feemeth  gocdtoyou  to  ftile  him  : )  That  all  you 

fay  out  of  S.  Paul,    S.  Peter  ,  the  Prophets  is  true  : 

\Vhat  are  thefe  to  me  ?  who  only  fay  that  the  Antienh 

fpake  fA/w ;  that  that  other  mme\%  not  from  Antiquity. 

i  recall  you  therfore  to  this  5  That,  among  the  Antient 

fhri/Iians  informer  ages,  you  (hew  me  out  of  their 

writings,  where  the' word  Pa/lor  was  ever  ufed,  and 

they  fpakenotoftheB*/fo/>:  or,  that  it  was  ufed  (as 

with  you  it  is  )  cfizParifhPrie/l.  Prevail  thus  far  with 

your  felf,  as  to  (hew  this  5  for,unlefs  you  do/A«,you  do 

nothing  to  the  purpofe. 

But  yet  fee,  of  what  force  thofe  things  are ,  thatyou 
brought  therei  For  S.  Paul  doth  not  fey  there ,  that 
Fresbytm.^&A,  pafere'] were  Pa/tors  :  this  He  faiths 
wherein  the  Holy  Ghoft  hath  made  you  Btfhops  R  fafcere  ] 
to  feed  [to  be  Paftorsover~]  the  Church  of  God.  Saint 
haul's  P  aft  or  therfore  is  a  Bijhop.  And\  left  you  (hould 
think  that  the  name  Bi/^istobetaken,  there,  apfht- 
latively  {  as  if  you would  (ay,  Stlchashaue  theCur'e  of*) 
not  properly  5  behold  ,  the  Syr  tack  Interpreter  himfclf 
reteins  the  Greek  word  f}  when the  Syntack-  vwnts  not    -S£tf      \ 
a  word  of  her  own,  by  which  to  e&prefs,  \_  Sucha*  tiaue    2^S"V?* 
the  Cure  of.  ]ii 

And  io  alfo  S.Peters  Pa/tor.  1.  Spift.  5.  chap,  i*  v. 

H  3  For 


4<>     3. Andrews  s  QfEjriftopacf.  IILEpift, 

For  I  whcly  doubt,  whether  that  pla<se,  of  S.  Peter, 
belong  to  inferior  Presbyters.    For  He  addeth  there 
(as you  know)  tyntf%r«a  being Si/hops  over  them  :  fo 
that  He  alfo  conjoins  Q  4  fop**  "]  being  B//3^ ,  witk 
#£  if,m^  ^  being  Paftors.  That  word  indeed  I  ftand 
not  upon.  That  which  follows  there  \_not  Lordingt$ 
over  the  Clergy  "]  doth  plainly  evince  ,  that  they,  to 
whouii  &  teter  wrote  this  ,    had  a*  «>  fmer  and 
authority  ovtr  the  Clt%gy  :   otherwife  ,  that  "jfWMir 
that  Y>omimtring  and  Lording  over  them  could  not 
poffibly  be  apply'd  to  them.  Whctfcn:  S.  Peters  Pa/ior 
muft  needs  be  a  Bifiop.  And  who  indeed  can  doubt  of 
tWs,feingtheconjunftionof  thofe  two  words  took  the 
.fcftrife  from  S.  P-eter. 

,  For,  wljeras  you  inferr  that  the  Word  q&  God  ii£.  fi& 
}m{wn\  food  :  that*  therfore  they  i  who  adnainiftcr 
tins  food,  dp,  C  /w/fe/r  *]  feed  :  I  (ball  eafily  grant 
you,  that  feed  they  do  ,  that  is,  Vmm\  but  not 
therefore uMikm .  s  whence  cometh  ne^w  5  as  you 
know  ,  1.  e.  ?*/?*?  5  who  y  over  and  above  the 
food  of  the  Word  ,  adminifter  fomewhat  clle  be- 
fide. 

But  wh*% ymbxing  from,  that  place  to  tie  £- 

phefiam*  chap.  4.  are  either  uncertain  %  For  1.  One 

will  have  Papers  and  Doflors  to  be  <*#  one.  2.  Ano- 

tjaer  maketh  m  mention  of  Paftors.  3.  AThirdthink- 

;©th,«fcfct;  Readers  are  i^r/.  I  ihall  fpeak  of  them 

1 .  To  S.  AugnfUne ,  P/yfor  and  D*£br.  are  no  other- 
wife,  the  feme ,  then  Order  and  "Degree  were,  to  us,  a 
little  .before.  Every  Order  a  Degree,  butmot.every 
C7 <-£>-;  Degree  &&  Order  :  fi>  every  Poftor  is,  a  :DbQxirj//but 
not  every  Dotfor  a  P*/?*r.  Who  faithi'this  ?  Saint 
Hkrm.>  ... 

2,  Of 


B.Andrews's  Ofbptfcopacj. !ltt.Epij&     & 

i.  Of  him,  who  makes  no  mention  j  thereof 
JU/?#r*5nor  w2Hmake  mention.  The  Monies  are  bet- 
ter inclind,  commonly,  to  Treatifers ,  then  to  B/^//. 
3,  For  S.  Ambrofe ,  who  underftood  B//&jpj  in  ^ 
^yf/«S  Presbyters  in  Prophets  ^  Deacons  in  EvAngelifts \ 
1*0  wonder ,  if  at  laft  he  fell  upon  Readers  y  when  he 
had  none  befide  them,  to  whom ,  after  thtfe  Three Jbc 
might  referr them. 

Thus,  fey  I,  either  vncerutn  they  are:  or,  when 
they  are  Certain  they  make  againft  you.  By  nai&ex 
S.  chry(o(iom  \  Who  defineth  Paftors  to  be  they^  to 
whom  v»as  committed  (  ™ms^)  the  generality  of 
the  people.  Arc  your  fo  ?  And  he  adds  who  were 
fuch^  a$  Timothy ,  faith  he ,  and  Tittts  5  who  were  both 
Eifiops  in  S.  Cbryfofioms  account :  and ,  I  belecve,  in 
your  account,  they  were  mOrethen  Presbyters,  labour- 
ing in  the  Word. 

Y&  remains  what  you  elancdat ,  out  of  the  Pro- 
phets, which  fUces  if  any  do  Accurately  confider ,  he  Jhslt 
find ^  that  not  only  the  high  Prie(lsybut  alfothe  Prophets  and 
LeviteS)  upon  whom  the  Office  of  teaching  Uy ,  were 
colled  by  thensme  ofPaftors*  Doubtleft,  he  (hall.  Add 
iftoreoYcr  }  he  (hall  find  Princes  in  the  State,  and  M*> 
giftrates  often  ,  nay  oftner  a  great  deal ,  to  be  call- 
ed by  the  name  of  Paftors,  then  all  them  put  toge- 
ther, whom  you  fct  down.  And  yet  we  do  not  call 
Primes  by  the  name  ofPajlors.  Nor  do  I  think  that  at 
Gtnev*  Keis  call'd  a  P*ftor  who  is  the  chief  Magiftr&te* 
The  PafUrs  ther fore  in  the  Prophets  reach  not  home,  • 
to  this .  Tell  me,  who  of  the  Antients  ever  fpakc  fo  5 
otherwife  we  are  befide  the  cufliion. 

Laftly,  that  fecm'dto  me  a  wondrous  {trange  op- 
pofition.  Indeed  it  k  not  by  the  Antients^  but -me 
Ftencbmen  $e*k  fi.  For,  muft  the  Antients  (peak  as 

the 


6i     %  Andre wss  OfGpifcopacy,  IIKEpifh 

TSFyr  ft  h  0r  the  Frenrh  as  thc  ^tkntChr^iAfis^ 
And  you  .run  upon  the  fame  rock  again,  afterward.; 
'     1$fi£$?.eslytcrs nbo labour  m  the  lVorA0  whom  *ye  French-- 
&ent  call  Minifcers.    For  it's  ftrange  ,  how  it  became 
lawful!  for  Frenchmen ,  to  put  upon  a  Presbyter  that 
nx\nt^  which  never  any  among  the  Ant  tents  ufed  .,  but 
fbr'a'D^tf.    I  fpeak  not  this  otherwife,  but  that 
even  among  its  too,  that  bad  fafhion  is  taken  up,  of 
calling   them  Mtnifters  ,    and  Paftors  too.    But  /A^ 
?>w^j  w^r  brought  in  by  them ,  who  beft  relifh  any 
upfhtrt  fafhion  \  but  againft  their  mind  who  reve- 
rence Antiquity^  and,  as  they  may,  difclaim  thefe 
ufages.     For  we  fuffer  ,    as  I  faid,  many  things, 
which  wc  teach  not  5    and  bear  with  that  which 
we  cannot  take  away.    But  he,  that  but  bears  with 
i ' thing £  loves  it  not  ,    though  he,  loves   to  bear- 
with  it. 

And  now  you  have  an  Anfwer  to  your  Letters,  fo 
far  as  my  occafions  give  me  leave.    For  I  have  not- 
tlie  happinefs  of  much  leafure..  But  although  I  read 
tfone  of  yours  unwillingly ,  yet  I-  read  no  pafsage 
more  willingly,  then  that  la  ft ,  wherin  you  pro* 
fefs  ,    He iv  'dejiroM  yvi  are  of  fence  ,  ..hovp  glad  y  01^ 
fipvld  be  th.it  all  the  Reformed  Churches,  who  are 
united  by  one  Faith,  were  united  by  one  and  the  fime, 
fond  of  Ecclefiaftical  Government.    Which  is  like- 
wife  my'earneft   and  hearty  prayer  :  and  I  daily 
begg  it  humbly  of  God  h  that  they  may  be"  united 
in  xh$fame  Form  of  Church  Pokey  ^  by  the  bond  ef  Ec- 
'  eleftaftied  Government  \  hut  t^xt  fame  which  derives  its 
fe  degree    from  the  very  infancy  of  the  Church  ^  from 
which ,  the.  Reverend  Antiquity  of  the  Firft  Agesy  vchuh 
vchofoever  otpofeth\  oftofeth  himfelf  to  all  Antiquity  \ 
rtbtch'Samt  James  the  Apoftie  began  m  the  Church. 

fc*«M    2.17  JJi*t      <*  <  ^ 


B.Andrews's  O/Epifcopacy.  III.EpifL    6\ 

of Hierufalem  ,  from  whom  the  fuccefion  of  Bi (hops  in  a 
long  courfe  defended  3  which  condemned  Aerius  ,  for 
daring  to  oppofe  bimfelf  againH  the  Confent  and  Praciife 
of  the  Catholik  Church  3  which  all  Churches  every  % 
where  received. 

I  come  at  laft  to  give  you  thanks.  For,  theBoqJc, 
you  promis'd  me ,  fhortly  after  I  had  fent  you  my 
former  Letters  ,  was  deliver  d  tome.  I  do  heerboth 
acknowledg  and  thank  you,  that  you  were  pleafed 
to  inlarg  and  inrich  my  Ljbrary  with  your  Two 
Books.  And  Iintreat  you,  begg  of  God  for  me5 
that  tjhe  remainder  of  my  life  ,  which  is  to  come  , 
~*my  be,  rather  good,  then  long.  For  as  a  Play  fo 
qur  Life ,  it  skills  not  how  long,  but  how  g*od0 
how  well  sifted.  In  like  maner  ,  I,  wifhing  all  hap  * 
pinefs  to  you,  (and  in  that  I  put  this,  That  the 
Reverend  ^Antiquity  of  the  Firft  Ages  may  be  in  higher 
ell e em  with  you  ^  then  the  upftart  novetl  device  of  any 
whofoever ,  )  do  freely  promife  you  my  help  and 
afsiftance  in  any  thing  ,  that  may ,  heer  ,  concern 
your  intereft.  You  will  pardon  me  ,  .if  I  have 
fpoke  fomwhat  more  freely  5  afluring  yourfelf, 
that ,  though  I  am  of  a  quite  different  judgment  in 
fome  points,  yet  my  charity  ^  and  brotherly  Affettio* 
toward  you,isnotchangd  awhit}  nor  (by  thagrace 
of  God)  (hall  ever  be. 


FIN!    S. 


• 


S.  Ignatius  inEpiftolaad  Magnefianoi. 

(aUo.  To  jS>  to/»td  Ttf^jcvc^oor,  ^  ©gs'e^^'r 

As  ou$  ZW  doth  nothing  without  his  Father  $ 
fo  neither  fto  ye  without  the  Bijbop  ;  neither  Pr^ 
byter^  Tie  aeon  ^  nor  Layman.  Let  nothing  feem  rea- 
fonable  to  you  3  againftte  liking  :  For  whatfocver 
is  fo5  is  againft  the  Law  ^  and  ofienfive  to  God. 


jfl  ■  * 


n 


■..■'■,■■;■:•  MIS